The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network-initiated clinical trials.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. METHODS: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. RESULTS: While time required for actual institutional review board submission's review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7-24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. CONCLUSION: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health's goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.

Time to institutional review board approval with local versus central review in a multicenter pragmatic trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Central institutional review board (IRB) review will be required for National Institutes of Health-funded multisite human subjects research as of January 2018, with similar requirements extending to most US multisite human research in 2020. Nonetheless, little is known regarding the relative efficiency of central versus local IRB review for multicenter studies. We compared the amount of time required for central versus local IRB review and approval for sites in one ongoing multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: The REGAIN Trial (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture; clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT02507505) is an ongoing randomized trial comparing standard-care spinal anesthesia to standard-care general anesthesia for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. After approval of the protocol by the sponsor IRB, each participating US site opted either to submit the protocol for local IRB review or to designate the sponsor IRB as the IRB of record (i.e. central IRB) via an authorization agreement after a limited local review. For each US REGAIN site approved through 18 April 2017, we assessed (1) the time in calendar days from protocol receipt to IRB submission, (2) the time in calendar days from IRB submission to IRB approval, and (3) the total time in calendar days from protocol receipt to IRB approval (i.e. time from protocol receipt to IRB submission plus time from IRB submission to IRB approval). RESULTS: The main study protocol was submitted to the sponsor IRB on 25 May 2015 and approved on 8 July 2015 (44 days). Out of 34 sites, 9 received initial approval from the central (sponsor) IRB; 25 sought initial approval via local review. The median time from protocol receipt to IRB submission was 39 days for sites approved by the central IRB (interquartile range: 35-134) versus 58 days for sites approved via local review (interquartile range: 41-105; p = 0.711). The median time from IRB submission to IRB approval for sites approved by the central IRB was 27 days (interquartile range: 14-32) versus 66 days (interquartile range: 29-138) for sites approved via local review (p = 0.026). The median total time from protocol receipt to IRB approval was 100 days (interquartile range: 71-148) for centrally approved sites versus 132 days (interquartile range: 87-209) for locally approved sites (p = 0.191). CONCLUSION: While central IRB review was associated with a shorter time from IRB submission to IRB approval compared to local IRB review, the total time from protocol receipt to IRB approval varied markedly across sites.

Filling the Regulatory Gap: Potential Role of Institutional Review Boards in Promoting Consideration of Sex as a Biological Variable.

Consideration of sex differences in biomedical research is crucial to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices for both sexes and to improve the rigor and reproducibility of scientific discoveries. Historically, women were underrepresented in clinical research and sex differences typically were not considered. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have played a role in improving the representation of women in clinical trials and in encouraging the consideration of sex differences. As it is not appropriate for all studies to be reviewed by the FDA nor do all studies have NIH funding, this results in a regulatory gap. We propose that local institutional review boards (IRBs) and institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs) provide greater oversight by encouraging researchers to consider sex as a biological variable (SABV) during protocol review. In this perspective article, we review how FDA and NIH policies have fostered change and highlight how IRBs and IACUCs could encourage investigators to consider SABV.

Inclusion of sex and gender in biomedical research: survey of clinical research proposed at the University of Pennsylvania.

BACKGROUND: The 2015 National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy that sex be considered as a biological variable (SABV) is now a critical part of the peer-review process for NIH funding as well as publication in several high-impact scientific journals. We sought to determine the degree to which biomedical researchers at the University of Pennsylvania already consider SABV or gender in their research. METHODS: We reviewed 240 research protocols approved by the University of Pennsylvania Investigational Review Board (IRB) consecutively submitted between January and July 2016. Each protocol was searched for the terms sex, gender, male, female, man, and woman and justifications related to the population under study. A PubMed search was conducted to determine the current state of knowledge regarding potential sex and/or gender differences with respect to protocol topic. Data were summarized using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 165 (68.8%) protocols that included one of the search terms, only 24 (14.5%) provided justification for the choice of the sex/gender of the population studied. Sixty-three percent (n = 151) of the protocols focused on topics for which the extant literature supports at least a moderate degree of sex/gender differences in some aspect of the disorder/condition being studied. Of these, only three (2.0%) indicated that the investigator would consider sex or gender impact on their primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Review of a subset of IRB protocols submitted at a major research institution suggests that very few investigators are considering sex or gender as important variables in their clinical research at the stage of protocol development. IRBs are in an excellent position to encourage investigators to consider SABV and gender in order to enhance the rigor of research design, maximize the importance of the resulting knowledge, and ensure that subject selection is equitable. These findings serve as the basis for developing an intervention at the level of IRB protocol development and submission that will promote consideration of SABV and/or gender, factors with critical import to patient safety and efficacy of interventions.