Institutional Review Board Quality, Private Equity, and Promoting Ethical Human Subjects Research.

Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for overseeing research involving human participants is critically important but perpetually challenging. Seemingly common-sense measures, such as the number of proposals approved with and without major modifications and the number of unexpected adverse events occurring in approved protocols, can be misleading indicators of participant protection, and regulatory compliance may not correspond to achieving ethical goals. These measurement challenges make it difficult to assess the validity of concerns about different IRB models. A group of U.S. senators recently raised questions about the increasing use of for-profit IRBs to review research proposals (as opposed to boards typically housed at academic medical centers and health care institutions) and, more specifically, about the growing trend of private equity ownership and consolidation of for-profit IRBs. Although all IRBs face pressure to speed reviews and none are entirely free of conflicts of interest, the private equity model is particularly susceptible to approaches that could undercut the ethical mission of IRBs to protect and promote the rights and welfare of research participants. Ideally, the quality of board oversight could be measured directly, rather than relying on the heuristic of board type; this article describes several current efforts toward this goal. In the meantime, one improvement may be to pursue a new model of IRB oversight: independent nonprofit boards that stand apart from research institutions, take advantage of business approaches to research review, and minimize conflicts of interest.

Bioethics in the Oversight of Clinical Research: Institutional Review Boards and Data and Safety Monitoring Boards.

This article describes oversight mechanisms for clinical research that have developed substantially over the last few decades, including institutional review boards and data safety and monitoring boards. LeRoy Walters and others in the 1970s in the US thoughtfully described the importance of fundamental ethical principles and the application of bioethics to clinical research. Dr. Walters's important essay and work with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research helped identify and explain ethical principles that guide research. These principles, subsequently enunciated by the Commission in the Belmont Report, remain central to our understanding of the ethics of clinical research and are the foundation of our regulations. In this article, I review some history, successes, and challenges of IRBs and DSMBs to exemplify the significance of understanding and applying ethical principles to the design and conduct of clinical research, and to honor Dr. Walters's contributions.

Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Human Participant Research.

This paper looks at the implications of changes to the regulatory governance of human participant research that can be expected with implementation of the Revised Common Rule (RCR). The RCR refers to revisions of the existing federal regulations that govern the performance of research involving human subjects (ie, clinical research) in the United States and, under certain circumstances, when such research is also performed outside the United States. The term "common" is included because it refers to the fact that these regulations, often referred to as Code of Federal Regulations 46, is the common denominator regulations agreed to across a wide swath of federal agencies.

Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff.

The new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for Multi-Site Research was adopted primarily to simplify and speed the review of complex multisite clinical trials. However, speeding review requires overcoming a number of obstacles. Perhaps the most substantial obstacle is the time and effort needed to develop reliance agreements among the participating sites. We conducted 102 semistructured interviews with sIRB personnel, including directors, chairs, reviewers, and staff, from 20 IRBs that acted as sIRBs for multisite research, including 6 commercial/independent sIRBs, and 10 university-based academic and 4 federal sIRBs. Almost without exception, the interviewees agreed that reliance agreements were complex, difficult to develop, and time-consuming. A major problem for relying sites was that different agreements specified different responsibilities for the relying sites. Attitudes differed about whether these problems will be resolved as IRB staff and managers become more experienced with sIRBs. However it is clear that the process of developing reliance agreements must be simplified. Federal assistance in standardizing at least some sections of reliance agreements might reduce the difficulties involved.

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board.

BACKGROUND: The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access. METHODS: We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified. RESULTS: Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

Why Public Comments Matter: The Case of the National Institutes of Health Policy on Single Institutional Review Board Review of Multicenter Studies.

PURPOSE: In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requested public comments on a draft policy requiring NIH-funded, U.S.-based investigators to use a single institutional review board (sIRB) for ethical review of multicenter studies. The authors conducted a directed content analysis and qualitative summary of the comments and discuss how they shaped the final policy. METHOD: Two reviewers independently assessed support for the policy from a review of comments on the draft policy in 2016. A reviewer conducted an open text review to identify prespecified and additional comment themes. A second researcher reviewed 20% of comments; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. RESULTS: The NIH received 167 comments: 65% (108/167) supportive of the policy, 23% (38/167) not supportive, and 12% (21/167) not indicating support. Clarifications or changes to the policy were suggested in 102/167 comments (61%). Criteria for selecting sIRBs were addressed in 32/102 comments (31%). Also addressed were institutional review board (IRB) responsibilities (39/102; 38%), cost (27/102; 26%), the role of local IRBs (14/102; 14%), and allowable policy exceptions (19/102; 19%). The NIH further clarified or provided guidance for selection criteria, IRB responsibilities, and cost in the final policy (June 2016). Local IRB reviews and exemptions guidance were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, public comments were effective in shaping policy as the NIH modified provisions or planned supplemental guidance in response to comments. Yet critical knowledge gaps remain, and empirical data are necessary. The NIH is considering mechanisms to support the establishment of best practices for sIRB implementation.

In defence of governance: ethics review and social research.

There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake-protecting researchers' freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy-raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably contested. However, these accounts cannot underpin a general claim in favour of, or against, a system of research ethics governance. Instead, we defend governance in social research on the grounds that research, as an institutionalised form of enquiry, is a constitutive element of human flourishing, and that society ought to be concerned with the flourishing of its members. We conclude by considering the governance arrangements that follow from, and are justified by, our arguments.

Revisión comentada de la legislación colombiana en ética de la investigación en salud / Commented review of the Colombian legislation regarding the ethics of health research

Resumen La ética de la investigación en salud no se agota en el marco normativo y trasciende la Resolución 8430 de 1993. Las normas constituyen una herramienta fundamental que determina los estándares mínimos de protección de los sujetos de investigación y, por lo tanto, su conocimiento y aplicación, así como la reflexión sobre ellas, son deberes de todos los investigadores en salud. En este texto se presentan y discuten desde un punto de vista analítico las normas para el ejercicio de la investigación en salud, entendiendo por salud un proceso multidimensional y por investigación en salud, un proceso multidisciplinario que trasciende este campo y abarca la investigación básica, la clínica y de salud pública, la colectiva y la de ciencias afines. Las principales categorías analíticas que se presentan se relacionan con los principios y los participantes en la investigación, las entidades reguladoras, los comités de ética y los sujetos y poblaciones especiales o vulnerables, y con los códigos de ética profesional, el consentimiento informado y el tratamiento de los datos. A pesar de los aportes de las normas éticas a la cualificación del ejercicio investigativo en salud, se concluyó que la normatividad vigente en Colombia debe actualizarse con respecto a los desarrollos técnicos y científicos y las especificidades de los diversos tipos de investigación en salud.

Abstract The scope of ethics in health research transcends its legal framework and the regulations established in Resolution 8430 of 1993. These norms represent a fundamental tool to determine the minimum protection standards for research subjects, and, therefore, they should be known, applied properly, and reflect upon by all researchers in the field. Here I present and discuss from an analytical point of view the regulations that guide research in health. In this framework, health is understood as a multidimensional process, and research in health as a multidisciplinary exercise involving basic, clinical and public health research, collective health, and other related sciences. The main analytical categories are related to the principles and actors involved in research (regulatory authorities, ethical committees, and special or vulnerable subjects and populations), and to professional ethics codes, in addition to informed consents and data management. Despite the contribution of this legislation to the qualification of health research, my conclusion is that the national legislation in ethics for health research requires updating regarding technological and scientific developments, as well as specifications from the multiple types of health studies.

Commented review of the Colombian legislation regarding the ethics of health research.

The scope of ethics in health research transcends its legal framework and the regulations established in Resolution 8430 of 1993. These norms represent a fundamental tool to determine the minimum protection standards for research subjects, and, therefore, they should be known, applied properly, and reflect upon by all researchers in the field.Here I present and discuss from an analytical point of view the regulations that guide research in health. In this framework, health is understood as a multidimensional process, and research in health as a multidisciplinary exercise involving basic, clinical and public health research, collective health, and other related sciences.The main analytical categories are related to the principles and actors involved in research (regulatory authorities, ethical committees, and special or vulnerable subjects and populations), and to professional ethics codes, in addition to informed consents and data management.Despite the contribution of this legislation to the qualification of health research, my conclusion is that the national legislation in ethics for health research requires updating regarding technological and scientific developments, as well as specifications from the multiple types of health studies.

Feedback of Individual Genetic Results to Research Participants: Is It Feasible in Europe?

BACKGROUND: There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach. RESULTS: Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

Ethics and Regulatory Challenges and Opportunities in Patient-Centered Comparative Effectiveness Research.

The Affordable Care Act includes provisions for the conduct of large-scale, patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Such efforts aim toward the laudable moral goal of having evidence to improve health care decision making. Nevertheless, these pragmatic clinical research efforts that typically pose minimal incremental risk and are enmeshed in routine care settings perhaps surprisingly encounter an array of ethics and regulatory challenges and opportunities for academic health centers. An emphasis on patient-centeredness forces an examination of the appropriateness of traditional methods used to protect the rights, interests, and welfare of participants. At the same time, meaningful collaboration with patients throughout the research process also necessitates ensuring that novel approaches to research (including recruitment and consent) entail necessary protections regarding such issues as privacy. As the scientific and logistical aspects of this research are being developed, substantial attention is being focused on the accompanying ethics and regulatory issues that have emerged, which should help to facilitate ethically appropriate research in a variety of contexts.

Compensation for research-related harm: the implications of Venter v Roche Products (Pty) Limited and Others for research ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: The issue of what type of compensation a research participant would be entitled to in a clinical trial when they have signed an informed consent document excluding certain forms of compensation recently came before our courts in the matter of Venter v Roche Products (Pty) Limited and Others (Case No. 12285/08). In this case, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff, Mr Venter, was entitled to claim for non-medical costs such as pain and suffering, loss of income and general damages, even though the informed-consent document expressly excluded such claims. OBJECTIVES: To set out the facts, issues and judgment in the case, concluding with a discussion of the implications of the judgment for research ethics committees (RECs). METHODS: Critical review of a judgment of the Western Cape High Court. RESULTS: The court concluded that Mr Venter's application for damages should be dismissed because he had voluntarily agreed to the limited compensation as set out in the informed consent form that had been approved by both the local RECs and the Medicines Control Council. CONCLUSIONS: The Venter case has shown that delictual claims for research-related injuries will not be successful if plaintiffs have agreed to limit their own rights through signing an informed-consent form that limits compensation. This places an important obligation on RECs to ensure that they carefully review compensation clauses in informed-consent documents and that these are made clear to potential research participants.

Are the votes of ethics committees in Germany for the protection of clinical study trial subjects "sovereign acts?".

A sudden paradigm shift has resulted in governmental measures that greatly impact the scope in which the ethics committees in Germany can perform their task of providing expert opinions for clinical research. The so-called "revaluation" of the Medical Device Law Deutsches Medizinproduktegesetz-MPG) is, in our opinion, not based on sound political and professional judgment. In accordance with the changed regulations, ethics committees are now seen as being sub-organs of the state medical associations or the medical faculties and are therefore official authorities. It follows that the votes of ethics committees are then "sovereign acts" or authoritative measures! However, equality and justice speak against this misleading conclusion and its resulting consequence that an ethics committee's vote is a sovereign act. This has, in turn, resulted in the public ethics committees obtaining their long-sought goal of having a state-sanctioned monopoly. The private ethics committees are not recognized as being authoritative bodies, nor are they to be seen as such in the future (i.e. such a status has been denied the Freiburg Ethics Commission International (FEKI) in Baden-Württemberg). This political mistake must be corrected, otherwise, conducting clinical research will become increasingly difficult.

Review of national research ethics regulations and guidelines in Middle Eastern Arab countries.

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.