A Federally Qualified Health Center-led Ethics & Equity Framework & Workflow Checklist: An Invited Commentary in Response to a Relational Public Health Framing of FQHCs During COVID-19.

With disparate rates of morbidity and mortality among minoritized communities, COVID-19 illuminated the need for equity-informed practices in public health. Pacia et al posit FQHCs as entities that addressed inequity when others failed. This commentary further situates how FQHCs address the public health crisis of institutional racism and related health inequities every day and presents a FQHC-led Ethics and Equity Framework and Workflow Checklist to guide ethical and equitable engagement with FQHCs.

Review of diversity, equity, and inclusion by ethics committees: A Delphi consensus statement.

The appropriate representation of diverse populations in interventional trials remains problematic. A Delphi process was used to affirm the central role that ethics committees and institutions play in this process and to establish consensus upon 25 consolidated recommendations across four themes to promote diversity and inclusion in interventional clinical research.

Site staff perspectives on communicating trial results to participants: Cost and feasibility results from the Show RESPECT cluster randomised, factorial, mixed-methods trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Sharing trial results with participants is an ethical imperative but often does not happen. Show RESPECT (ISRCTN96189403) tested ways of sharing results with participants in an ovarian cancer trial (ISRCTN10356387). Sharing results via a printed summary improved patient satisfaction. Little is known about staff experience and the costs of communicating results with participants. We report the costs of communication approaches used in Show RESPECT and the views of site staff on these approaches. METHODS: We allocated 43 hospitals (sites) to share results with trial participants through one of eight intervention combinations (2 × 2 × 2 factorial; enhanced versus basic webpage, printed summary versus no printed summary, email list invitation versus no invitation). Questionnaires elicited data from staff involved in sharing results. Open- and closed-ended questions covered resources used to share results and site staff perspectives on the approaches used. Semi-structured interviews were conducted. Interview and free-text data were analysed thematically. The mean additional site costs per participant from each intervention were estimated jointly as main effects by linear regression. RESULTS: We received questionnaires from 68 staff from 41 sites and interviewed 11 site staff. Sites allocated to the printed summary had mean total site costs of sharing results £13.71/patient higher (95% confidence interval (CI): -3.19, 30.60; p = 0.108) than sites allocated no printed summary. Sites allocated to the enhanced webpage had mean total site costs £1.91/patient higher (95% CI: -14, 18.74; p = 0.819) than sites allocated to the basic webpage. Sites allocated to the email list had costs £2.87/patient lower (95% CI: -19.70, 13.95; p = 0.731) than sites allocated to no email list. Most of these costs were staff time for mailing information and handling patients' queries. Most site staff reported no concerns about how they had shared results (88%) and no challenges (76%). Most (83%) found it easy to answer queries from patients about the results and thought the way they were allocated to share results with participants would be an acceptable standard approach (76%), with 79% saying they would follow the same approach for future trials. There were no significant effects of the randomised interventions on these outcomes. Site staff emphasised the importance of preparing patients to receive the results, including giving opt-in/opt-out options, and the need to offer further support, particularly if the results could confuse or distress some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Adding a printed summary to a webpage (which significantly improved participant satisfaction) may increase costs to sites by ~£14/patient, which is modest in relation to the cost of trials. The Show RESPECT communication interventions were feasible to implement. This information could help future trials ensure they have sufficient resources to share results with participants.

Data visualization explorer: A tool for participant representation in pivotal trials of FDA-approved medicinal products.

This paper presents a 2015-2021 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) Data Visualization Explorer-an interactive data visualization web-based tool (https://arielcarmeli.shinyapps.io/fda-drug-trial-snapshots-data-explorer) built in R and based on publicly available FDA clinical trial participation data and disease incidence data from the National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FDA data can be explored by race, ethnicity, sex, age group, therapeutic area, pharmaceutical sponsor, and approval year for clinical trials that supported each of the 339 FDA drug and biologic approvals between 2015 and 2021. This work provides several advantages relative to past literature and DTS reports: a dynamic data visualization tool; race, ethnicity, sex, and age group data presented in one place; data on sponsor; and emphasis on data distributions instead of averages. We present recommendations for improved data access, reporting, and communication to assist leaders in making evidence-based decisions to improve trial representation to enhance health equity.

Strategies to optimize inclusion of women in multi-national clinical trials.

The proportion of women represented in clinical trials in the United States has been increasing and, in many but not all therapeutic areas, equivalent to that of men. This is an important achievement since safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of medical products and interventions differ by population subgroup. Outside the US however, there are significant complexities to the inclusion of women. Considerations for the inclusion of women that would make participation less burdensome are suggested as are other approaches to rectify underrepresentation. Appropriate subgroup analysis will contribute to an understanding of biological differences as well as to health equity.

Advancing the inclusion of underrepresented women in clinical research.

Women, and specifically women of color, are underrepresented in clinical trials, limiting biological understanding and contributing to health inequities and social injustice. Analyses of barriers to inclusion suggest practical interventions that together create a roadmap of specific and actionable steps to increase diverse representation in research and sustainable change.

Economic vulnerability and payment for research participation.

There has been significant analysis of the ethical and regulatory issues involved with paying research participants, but less attention has been focused specifically on paying economically vulnerable individuals and the unique challenges it may present. This is important, as individuals of lower socio-economic standing are present in all disease groups and study populations. Moreover, clinical research is often conducted in economically under-developed locales, such as lower- or middle-income countries as well as impoverished locales of otherwise wealthy nations (such as, for example, rural Appalachia in the United States). Is it ethical to offer payment in such contexts? What are the ethical considerations relevant for determining payment rates and practices to individuals who are economically vulnerable? We offer an analysis of these issues, focusing on four unique areas of concern: (1) whether the risk of undue influence is greater for economically vulnerable individuals than for wealthier ones; (2) whether payment unacceptably raises the risk of 'unjust influence' or disproportionate representation of poor people in clinical research; (3) the positive reasons in favor of paying economically vulnerable people that stem from the ethical value of fairness; and (4) appropriate compensation rates for economically vulnerable populations. Our analysis supports the position that payment to economically vulnerable populations is ethically justified and indeed desirable when certain conditions are met.

Relocation of study participants for rare and ultra-rare disease trials: Ethics and operations.

Clinical trials for investigational new products to treat rare and ultra-rare diseases typically involve a limited number of research sites recruiting from a small pool of patients dispersed over a large geographical area. When remote access is not possible and participants must be present at a trial site, participation in research may require individuals and their families/caregivers to travel great distances, often at significant cost personally and financially and, frequently, for the duration of the trial. This article addresses the ethical and practical issues associated with the practice of sponsors offering financial and other assistance for relocation to trial sites from significant geographical distances, providing both foundational analysis of the ethical issues as well as actionable policy-level guidance on how to best approach these situations.

Transitioning to the National Institutes of Health single institutional review board model: Piloting the use of the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Obtaining ethical approval from multiple institutional review boards is a long-standing challenge to multi-site clinical trials and often leads to significant delays in study activation and enrollment. As of 25 January 2018, the National Institutes of Health began requiring use of a single institutional review board for US multi-site trials. To learn more and further inform the research and regulatory communities around aspects of transitioning to single institutional review board review, this study evaluated the efficiency, resource use, and user perceptions of a nascent institutional review board reliance model (Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance). METHODS: This research was embedded within the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure trial-a multi-site trial of two influenza vaccine formulations. In the first year of the trial, a sample of sites agreed to use the developing Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model and participated in its evaluation. In keeping with a least burdensome approach, short surveys were developed and obtained from each reporting entity (relying sites, non-relying site, lead site, and reviewing institutional review board). Data regarding time to institutional review board approval and site activation, costs, and user perceptions of reliant review were self-reported and collected via the survey form. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed, with costs analyzed as actual versus estimated due to the lack of established baseline cost data. RESULTS: A total of 13 sites ceded review and received institutional review board approval. Mean time to approval was substantially faster in sites that ceded review using the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model versus the site that did not cede review (81 vs 121 days). The mean time to approval was also faster than published averages for academic medical centers (81 vs 103 days). Time to first enrollment was faster for ceding sites versus the non-ceding site, and also faster than published averages (126 vs 149 and 169 days, respectively). Costs were higher than estimates for local institutional review board review and approval. Nearly half (47%) the stakeholders reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the reliance experience, although many noted the challenge related to institutional culture change. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a single institutional review board represents a shift in practice and culture for many institutions. Evaluation of the reliance arrangements for this study highlights both the potential of, and challenges for, institutions as they transition to single institutional review board review. Although efficiencies were observed for study start-up, we anticipate a learning curve as institutions and research teams implement necessary process and resource changes to adapt to single institutional review board oversight. Findings may inform research teams but are, however, limited by the relatively small number of sites and lack of a control group.

Reimagining Health Data Exchange: An Application Programming Interface-Enabled Roadmap for India.

In February 2018, the Government of India announced a massive public health insurance scheme extending coverage to 500 million citizens, in effect making it the world's largest insurance program. To meet this target, the government will rely on technology to effectively scale services, monitor quality, and ensure accountability. While India has seen great strides in informational technology development and outsourcing, cellular phone penetration, cloud computing, and financial technology, the digital health ecosystem is in its nascent stages and has been waiting for a catalyst to seed the system. This National Health Protection Scheme is expected to provide just this impetus for widespread adoption. However, health data in India are mostly not digitized. In the few instances that they are, the data are not standardized, not interoperable, and not readily accessible to clinicians, researchers, or policymakers. While such barriers to easy health information exchange are hardly unique to India, the greenfield nature of India's digital health infrastructure presents an excellent opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of complex, restrictive, digital health systems that have evolved elsewhere. We propose here a federated, patient-centric, application programming interface (API)-enabled health information ecosystem that leverages India's near-universal mobile phone penetration, universal availability of unique ID systems, and evolving privacy and data protection laws. It builds on global best practices and promotes the adoption of human-centered design principles, data minimization, and open standard APIs. The recommendations are the result of 18 months of deliberations with multiple stakeholders in India and the United States, including from academia, industry, and government.

Assessment of a shortened informed consent form for pediatric research: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Inherent to clinical research is the informed consent process, with the informed consent form (ICF), a key component of human participant protections. We wished to examine whether a shortened and simplified ICF, accompanied by an appendix, improved participant understanding of a study compared with a conventional ICF. METHODS: A shortened ICF was developed from an existing conventional ICF for a neonatal study. Either the shortened or conventional ICF was randomly distributed to members of two parental advocacy groups. Participants answered survey questions about the form they received. RESULTS: Thirty-one out of forty-one (76%) parents in the shortened ICF and 28/41 (68%) in the conventional ICF group responded. Significantly more parents in the shortened ICF group found their form "short and to the point". Although they also stated that the shortened ICF did not provide enough information, there were no significant differences between groups measuring the understanding of key study components. CONCLUSION: A shortened ICF did not impact the understanding of the clinical trial. It will be important to compare the shortened and conventional forms in actual clinical trials.

The Education Review Board: A Mechanism for Managing Potential Conflicts of Interest in Medical Education.

Concerns about the influence of industry support on medical education, research, and patient care have increased in both medical and political circles. Some academic medical centers, questioning whether industry support of medical education could be appropriate and not a conflict of interest, banned such support. In 2009, a Partners HealthCare System commission concluded that interactions with industry remained important to Partners' charitable academic mission and made recommendations to transparently manage such relationships. An Education Review Board (ERB) was created to oversee and manage all industry support of Partners educational activities.Using a case review method, the ERB developed guidelines to implement the commission's recommendations. A multi-funder rule was established that prohibits industry support from only one company for any Partners educational activity. Within that framework, the ERB established guidelines on industry support of educational conferences, clinical fellowships, and trainees' expenses for attending external educational programs; gifts of textbooks and other educational materials; promotional opportunities associated with Partners educational activities; Partners educational activities under contract with an industry entity; and industry-run programs using Partners resources.Although many changes have resulted from the implementation of the ERB guidelines, the number of industry grants for Partners educational activities has remained relatively stable, and funding for these activities declined only moderately during the first three full calendar years (2011-2013) of ERB oversight. The ERB continually educates both the Partners community and industry about the rationale for its guidelines and its openness to their refinement in response to changes in the external environment.

The Harvard Catalyst Common Reciprocal IRB Reliance Agreement: an innovative approach to multisite IRB review and oversight.

Reduction of duplicative Institutional Review Board (IRB) review for multiinstitutional studies is a desirable goal to improve IRB efficiency while enhancing human subject protections. Here we describe the Harvard Catalyst Master Reciprocal Common IRB Reliance Agreement (MRA), a system that provides a legal framework for IRB reliance, with the potential to streamline IRB review processes and reduce administrative burden and barriers to collaborative, multiinstitutional research. The MRA respects the legal autonomy of the signatory institutions while offering a pathway to eliminate duplicative IRB review when appropriate. The Harvard Catalyst MRA provides a robust and flexible model for reciprocal reliance that is both adaptable and scalable.