Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review­and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.

Changing the research landscape: the New York City Clinical Data Research Network.

The New York City Clinical Data Research Network (NYC-CDRN), funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), brings together 22 organizations including seven independent health systems to enable patient-centered clinical research, support a national network, and facilitate learning healthcare systems. The NYC-CDRN includes a robust, collaborative governance and organizational infrastructure, which takes advantage of its participants' experience, expertise, and history of collaboration. The technical design will employ an information model to document and manage the collection and transformation of clinical data, local institutional staging areas to transform and validate data, a centralized data processing facility to aggregate and share data, and use of common standards and tools. We strive to ensure that our project is patient-centered; nurtures collaboration among all stakeholders; develops scalable solutions facilitating growth and connections; chooses simple, elegant solutions wherever possible; and explores ways to streamline the administrative and regulatory approval process across sites.

The institutional review board.

Several ethical transgressions involving human subjects in scientific research during the last century have led to guidelines for acceptable research conduct and oversight. Thoughtful examination of these events yielded ethical documents whose principles eventually became codified into federal regulations governing research. These regulations specify the composition and function of the institutional review board (IRB), as well as the criteria by which the IRB judges the acceptability of proposed research. Continuous advances in medicine and technology generate the need to test new and potentially viable interventions for safety and efficacy. These advances in medical science rely heavily on the altruism and sometimes heroism of individuals who put their own well being at risk for the benefit of others by participating in clinical research experiments. It is therefore necessary for researchers to understand the function of the IRB and ethics review committees from which approval is required before research in human subjects may begin. Understanding the function of the IRB requires an appreciation for the rules by which it is governed, as well as the history and circumstances that influenced the creation of those rules. Researchers who appreciate the IRB's purpose will be better equipped to navigate the labyrinth of research guidelines and regulations.