Exercise oncology clinical trials during treatments: a commentary to address the safety concerns of human subjects regulatory reviewers and committees.

Exercise oncology clinical trials contribute to the advancement of our scientific knowledge and to the safety and care of patients diagnosed with cancer. Nevertheless, regulatory reviewers and committees may not be familiar with the well-documented long-term health benefits and safety of the regular practice of physical activity. Moreover, they may not see how the benefits outweigh the risks in the context where patients diagnosed with cancer are typically seen as vulnerable. Therefore, we would like to provide a purpose-built overview of exercise oncology clinical trials for members involved in institutional review committees, including the Scientific Review Committee (SRC), the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to facilitate a greater understanding of the safety and benefits of physical activity during cancer treatments. Communication is key to improve the success of exercise oncology clinical trials, which are vital for patients diagnosed with cancer.

What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research.

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Why and when should we cluster randomize?

A cluster randomized trial is defined as a randomized trial in which intact social units of individuals are randomized rather than individuals themselves. Outcomes are observed on individual participants within clusters (such as patients). Such a design allows assessing interventions targeting cluster-level participants (such as physicians), individual participants or both. Indeed, many interventions assessed in cluster randomized trials are actually complex ones, with distinct components targeting different levels. For a cluster-level intervention, cluster randomization is an obvious choice: the intervention is not divisible at the individual-level. For individual-level interventions, cluster randomization may nevertheless be suitable to prevent group contamination, for logistical reasons, to enhance participants' adherence, or when objectives pertain to the cluster level. An unacceptable reason for cluster randomization would be to avoid obtaining individual consent. Indeed, participants in cluster randomized trials have to be protected as in any type of trial design. Participants may be people from whom data are collected, but they may also be people who are intervened upon, and this includes both patients and physicians (for example, physicians receiving training interventions). Consent should be sought as soon as possible, although there may exist situations where participants may consent only for data collection, not for being exposed to the intervention (because, for instance, they cannot opt-out). There may even be situations where participants are not able to consent at all. In this latter situation a waiver of consent must be granted by a research ethics committee.

The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19.

There is an urgent need for increased understanding of COVID-19 and strategies for its prevention, treatment, and mitigation. All participants in the research enterprise, including institutional review boards, have an ethical duty to protect participants and ensure that the benefits gained from such research do not conflict with the core principles that guided researchers prior to the pandemic. In this review, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding initiation and conduct of clinical trials, focusing on novel COVID-19 therapeutic, vaccine, or biospecimen research, using the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. We discuss strategies to manage the practical challenges associated with the conduct of clinical trials, with an emphasis on maintaining the rights and welfare of research participants.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW. METHODS: We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW. RESULTS: We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research. CONCLUSIONS: The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

Lessons from studies of medication reduction in psychosis: giving participants accurate information about risk in psychiatric research trials.

All research needs ethical regulation, which is institutionalized in research ethics committees. The patient information sheet, approved by a research ethics committee, sets out what patients need to know to make an informed choice about research participation. However, guidance from research ethics committees is much less explicit about risk communication. In this commentary, the balance of risk in the patient information sheets from protocols of 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medication reduction in psychosis was compared with numbers needed to treat and harm from the literature. The patient information sheet omitted risk of excess death and incomplete recovery following relapse, and overestimated the anticipated benefits. All of these risks were demonstrated in the published results of 1 of the 2 RCTs. Quantifying and tabulating risk might improve patient information sheets.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Impact of institutional review board stipulations on turnaround time for approvals of surgical studies.

BACKGROUND: We have examined the number and types of stipulations received following the submission of surgical study protocols to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for review, and their effect on turnaround time for approval. This analysis will enable our organization to improve the quality of applications and design of study protocols, which can streamline the approval process and increase efficiency of the startup phase for clinical research. METHODS: IRB stipulations for 48 surgical studies were analyzed. Various factors were assessed: surgical specialty, type of study by design, clinical trial phase, type of investigational product, type of IRB utilized (local or centralized), study complexity score, type of review (e.g., exempt, expedited, or full board), turnaround time, and number of stipulations received. Statistical analyses were performed to examine associations between the number/type of stipulations received during the IRB review process and any of the aforementioned study-related factors. RESULTS: For analyzed surgical studies, the number of stipulations allotted to a study and time taken for approval had moderate association with the complexity of the study. The turnaround time for approval was the highest for randomized, controlled trials and studies undergoing full board review. CONCLUSION: This study elucidates characteristics that are associated with increased time for IRB approval. Analysis of IRB stipulations can help improve the turnaround time for the approval process, increase efficiency of startup phase, and transition to execution phase faster, which will allow more time for enrollment of research subjects, and increase return on investment made into research and development programs.

Ethical Research and the Institutional Review Board: An Introduction.

Editor's note: This is the 20th article in a series on clinical research by nurses. The series is designed to be used as a resource for nurses to understand the concepts and principles essential to research. Each column will present the concepts that underpin evidence-based practice-from research design to data interpretation. To see all the articles in the series, go to https://links.lww.com/AJN/A204.

Chapitre 2. L'autonomisation des comités nationaux d'éthique de la recherche en Afrique : perspective historique et enjeux actuels.

Since the 60s, and particularly after various scandals in the 90s, national research ethics committees in Africa have established themselves as key players in the field of international clinical research. Notably based on the principle of double ethical review, their existence has historically been aimed at preventing a form of ethical dumping, a temptation that still exists today on the part of some research promoters. While the international framework of “soft” law has favored their emergence and legitimacy, a legal and regulatory framework of “hard” law is also necessary at local level for each national research ethics committee, to ensure its proper functioning and the optimal fulfillment of its missions. The aim of this article is to analyze the similarities and differences between three national ethics committees in Africa, specifically the CNERS of Guinea, the CNERS of Benin and the CNESVS of Côte d’Ivoire, in terms of status, missions, legal or regulatory ground and, more generally, autonomy. This analysis will enable us, on the one hand, to take account of common logistical difficulties and, on the other, to go beyond differences in legal status and missions to define what enables this type of committee to fully exercise its role(s). Finally, this article proposes to model the various elements that contribute to the autonomy and resilience of a national research ethics committee, around a notion proposed on this occasion: the “circles of autonomy”.

Navigating Institutional Review Boards.

Obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval can be an overwhelming task, especially for new researchers. IRB approval can require many documents and steps. It is important to start the submission early, have patience throughout the process, and determine what can help expedite the process. Research cannot begin without IRB approval, which is necessary when working with human subjects. Ultimately, the researchers and IRB have the same goal of enabling good research with minimal subject risk. The goal of this article is to give an overview of the IRB for practitioners performing research in podiatric medicine and surgery.

The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved - can we do better?

Research ethics committees exist internationally to review research proposals to protect the rights and safety of human participants and researchers involved in research. These committees recruit a panel of expert and lay members, mostly on an unpaid voluntary basis, with relevant scientific experience to appraise these studies. Contemporary data in the UK show that women and people over 55 years old are overrepresented in these committee panels in the Health Research Authority, suggesting that there are potential barriers to inclusivity and participation. A variety of global approaches to tackle these barriers include targeting specific populations, such as faith or community leaders, or implementing quotas have been adopted. Further research is needed to understand likely barriers preventing participation in research ethics committees in the UK and how they may be overcome.

Institutional Review Board Considerations for Clinical Trials.

To protect subjects who participate in human research, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play an important role in reviewing research and determining the validity of a study by comprehensively examining it for ethical issues, including invasiveness and management of personal information. They conduct regular and independent reviews to protect the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects. When we as researchers conduct clinical research, we must obtain IRB approval and submit our research for investigation of ethical issues before we begin.

Factors that impact on the quality of life of intestinal failure patients treated with home parenteral nutrition: protocol for a multicentre, longitudinal observational study.

BACKGROUND: Home parenteral nutrition (HPN) refers to the intravenous administration of macronutrients, micronutrients and fluid. The aims of treatment are to increase survival and improve quality of life (QoL). However, patients struggle with physiological symptoms, time-consuming invasive therapy and an increased occurrence of depression and social isolation. Our aim is to understand how HPN impacts the QoL of patients, and the contribution played by the complications of treatment, for example, liver disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, longitudinal, observational study will be conducted using routinely collected clinical data. Participants will also be asked to complete three QoL questionnaires (EuroQol-5 Dimensions, Short Form 36 and HPN-QoL) at baseline and 12 months. The primary outcome is mean change in QoL scores over 12 months. Secondary outcomes include how factors including liver function, gut microbiota, number of infusions of PN per week, nutritional composition of PN and nutritional status impact on QoL scores. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from HRA and Health and Care Research Wales Research Ethics Committee (21/SC/0316). The study was eligible for portfolio adoption, Central Portfolio Management System ID 50506. Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals and presented at national and international meetings.

Does a blended learning implementation package enhance HIV index case testing in Malawi? A protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Index case testing (ICT) is an evidence-based approach that efficiently identifies persons in need of HIV treatment and prevention services. In Malawi, delivery of ICT has faced challenges due to limited technical capacity of healthcare workers (HCWs) and clinical coordination. Digitisation of training and quality improvement processes presents an opportunity to address these challenges. We developed an implementation package that combines digital and face-to-face modalities (blended learning) to strengthen HCWs ICT skills and enhance quality improvement mechanisms. This cluster randomised controlled trial will assess the impact of the blended learning implementation package compared with the standard of care (SOC) on implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study was conducted in 33 clusters in Machinga and Balaka districts, in Southern Malawi from November 2021 to November 2023. Clusters are randomised in a 2:1 ratio to the SOC versus blended learning implementation package. The SOC is composed of: brief face-to-face HCW ICT training and routine face-to-face facility mentorship for HCWs. The blended learning implementation package consists of blended teaching, role-modelling, practising, and providing feedback, and blended quality improvement processes. The primary implementation outcome is HCW fidelity to ICT over 1 year of follow-up. Primary service uptake outcomes include (a) index clients who participate in ICT, (b) contacts elicited, (c) HIV self-test kits provided for secondary distribution, (d) contacts tested and (e) contacts identified as HIV-positive. Service uptake analyses will use a negative binomial mixed-effects model to account for repeated measures within each cluster. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios examining the incremental cost of each person tested. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Malawi National Health Science Research Committee, the University of North Carolina and the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Boards approved the trial. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05343390.

Institutional Review Boards' Assessment of Local Context: A Mixed Methods Study.

The nature of the review of local context by institutional review boards (IRBs) is vague. Requirements for single IRB review of multicenter trials create a need to better understand interpretation and implementation of local-context review and how to best implement such reviews centrally. We sought a pragmatic understanding of IRB local-context review by exploring stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions. Semistructured interviews with 26 IRB members and staff members, institutional officials, and investigators were integrated with 80 surveys of similar stakeholders and analyzed with qualitative theme-based text analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. Stakeholders described what they considered to be local context, the value of local-context review, and key processes used to implement review of local context in general and for emergency research conducted with an exception from informed consent. Concerns and potential advantages of centralized review of local context were expressed. Variability in perspectives suggests that local-context review is not a discrete process, which presents opportunities for defining pathways for single IRB review.

The Ethics of Using News Stories concerning Minors as Empirical Material in Health Research: Reflections on a Swedish Case.

In 2021, we were designing a research study in Sweden in which we planned to use newspaper articles focusing on children and adolescents under the age of eighteen during the Covid-19 pandemic as empirical material. As we developed this study, an ethical question arose: do studies using journalistic articles that may contain health information about individuals as empirical material have to be approved by an ethics review committee? Sweden, in contrast to other countries, requires the approval of an ethics review committee for the use of publicly available material in research when such material might include sensitive personal data such as health-related information. This case study calls for harmonized laws and policies that support global research by clarifying what kinds of empirical material and what types of research must be assessed by national ethics review committees, including with consideration for children's safety and rights.

Returning Individual Research Results from Digital Phenotyping in Psychiatry.

Psychiatry is rapidly adopting digital phenotyping and artificial intelligence/machine learning tools to study mental illness based on tracking participants' locations, online activity, phone and text message usage, heart rate, sleep, physical activity, and more. Existing ethical frameworks for return of individual research results (IRRs) are inadequate to guide researchers for when, if, and how to return this unprecedented number of potentially sensitive results about each participant's real-world behavior. To address this gap, we convened an interdisciplinary expert working group, supported by a National Institute of Mental Health grant. Building on established guidelines and the emerging norm of returning results in participant-centered research, we present a novel framework specific to the ethical, legal, and social implications of returning IRRs in digital phenotyping research. Our framework offers researchers, clinicians, and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) urgently needed guidance, and the principles developed here in the context of psychiatry will be readily adaptable to other therapeutic areas.

[Ethical principles for the design of a clinical trial in oncology]. / Règles éthiques pour la conception d'un essai clinique en oncologie.

Clinical research in the area of cancer is of utmost importance in order to improve patient care, both in terms of overall survival and quality of life. The implementation of clinical trials on medicinal products, now falling under EU Regulation 536/2014, is conditioned on prior scientific authorisation from the French National Agency for the Safety of Medicines and Health Products and a favorable ethical opinion from a Research Ethics Committee (REC). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to report on the main problematic issues identified during the evaluation of oncology dossiers by the REC in order to present the expected elements and thus optimise the evaluation procedures. METHODS: The National Conference of the Research Ethics Committees analysed the questions raised by the REC during their evaluation of clinical trials of oncology drugs submitted to the European information system in 2022. RESULTS: Out of a total of fourteen dossiers, nine were subject to ethical questions on the protocol and all dossiers required modifications to the information documents. DISCUSSION: The heterogeneous quality of the dossiers reminds the need to submit well-argued, methodologically robust protocols with supervised research procedures that are safe for the participants. The drafting of information documents needs to be thoroughly reconsidered in order to present clear, concise, loyal and respectful documents for patients' rights.