Literature DB >> 25406606

Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network.

Petra Kaufmann1, P Pearl O'Rourke.   

Abstract

PROBLEM: Translating discoveries into therapeutics is often delayed by lengthy start-up periods for multicenter clinical trials. One cause of delay can be multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews of the same protocol. APPROACH: When developing the Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials (NeuroNEXT; hereafter, NN), the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) established a central IRB (CIRB) based at Massachusetts General Hospital, the academic medical center that received the NN clinical coordinating center grant. The 25 NN sites, located at U.S. academic institutions, agreed to required CIRB use for NN trials. OUTCOMES: To delineate roles and establish legal relationships between the NN sites and the CIRB, the CIRB executed reliance agreements with the sites and their affiliates that hold federalwide assurance for the protection of human subjects (FWA); this took, on average, 84 days. The first NN protocol reviewed by the CIRB achieved full approval to allow participant enrollment within 56 days and went from grant award to the first patient visit in less than four months. The authors describe anticipated challenges related to institutional oversight responsibilities versus regulatory CIRB review as well as unanticipated challenges related to working with complex organizations that include multiple FWA-holding affiliates. NEXT STEPS: The authors anticipate that CIRB use will decrease NN trial start-up time and thus promote efficient trial implementation. They plan to collect data on timelines and costs associated with CIRB use. The NINDS plans to promote CIRB use in future initiatives.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25406606      PMCID: PMC4859204          DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000562

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  3 in total

1.  The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review.

Authors:  Jerry Menikoff
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-10-13       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Costs and benefits of the national cancer institute central institutional review board.

Authors:  Todd H Wagner; Christine Murray; Jacquelyn Goldberg; Jeanne M Adler; Jeffrey Abrams
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-19       Impact factor: 44.544

3.  Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.

Authors:  Kathryn E Flynn; Cynthia L Hahn; Judith M Kramer; Devon K Check; Carrie B Dombeck; Soo Bang; Jane Perlmutter; Felix A Khin-Maung-Gyi; Kevin P Weinfurt
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-01-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total
  19 in total

Review 1.  Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges.

Authors:  Christine Grady
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2015-11       Impact factor: 9.410

2.  Public Comments on the Proposed Common Rule Mandate for Single-IRB Review of Multisite Research.

Authors:  Holly A Taylor; Stephan Ehrhardt; Ann-Margret Ervin
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2019-01

3.  "You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies.

Authors:  Nora B Henrikson; Paula R Blasi; Jeremy J Corsmo; Emily Sheffer Serdoz; Aaron Scrol; Sarah M Greene; Tanya L Matthews; James D Ralston
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2019-05-22       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Natural history of infantile-onset spinal muscular atrophy.

Authors:  Stephen J Kolb; Christopher S Coffey; Jon W Yankey; Kristin Krosschell; W David Arnold; Seward B Rutkove; Kathryn J Swoboda; Sandra P Reyna; Ai Sakonju; Basil T Darras; Richard Shell; Nancy Kuntz; Diana Castro; Julie Parsons; Anne M Connolly; Claudia A Chiriboga; Craig McDonald; W Bryan Burnette; Klaus Werner; Mathula Thangarajh; Perry B Shieh; Erika Finanger; Merit E Cudkowicz; Michelle M McGovern; D Elizabeth McNeil; Richard Finkel; Susan T Iannaccone; Edward Kaye; Allison Kingsley; Samantha R Renusch; Vicki L McGovern; Xueqian Wang; Phillip G Zaworski; Thomas W Prior; Arthur H M Burghes; Amy Bartlett; John T Kissel
Journal:  Ann Neurol       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 10.422

5.  NIH Policy on Single-IRB Review - A New Era in Multicenter Studies.

Authors:  Ann-Margret Ervin; Holly A Taylor; Stephan Ehrhardt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-12-15       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Implications of the Revised Common Rule for Human Participant Research.

Authors:  Evan G DeRenzo; Joel Moss; Eric A Singer
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2018-10-09       Impact factor: 9.410

7.  Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

Authors:  P Pearl O'Rourke; Judith Carrithers; Bray Patrick-Lake; Todd W Rice; Jeremy Corsmo; Raffaella Hart; Marc K Drezner; John D Lantos
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2015-09-15       Impact factor: 2.486

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

Authors:  Michael P Diamond; Esther Eisenberg; Hao Huang; Christos Coutifaris; Richard S Legro; Karl R Hansen; Anne Z Steiner; Marcelle Cedars; Kurt Barnhart; Tracy Ziolek; Tracey R Thomas; Kate Maurer; Stephen A Krawetz; Robert A Wild; J C Trussell; Nanette Santoro; Heping Zhang
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.486

9.  Seven-Year Experience From the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke-Supported Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials.

Authors:  Merit Cudkowicz; Marianne K Chase; Christopher S Coffey; Dixie J Ecklund; Brenda J Thornell; Codrin Lungu; Katy Mahoney; Laurie Gutmann; Jeremy M Shefner; Kevin J Staley; Michael Bosch; Eric Foster; Jeffrey D Long; Emine O Bayman; James Torner; Jon Yankey; Richard Peters; Trevis Huff; Robin A Conwit; Shlomo Shinnar; Donna Patch; Basil T Darras; Audrey Ellis; Roger J Packer; Karen S Marder; Claudia A Chiriboga; Claire Henchcliffe; Joyce Ann Moran; Blagovest Nikolov; Stewart A Factor; Carole Seeley; Steven M Greenberg; Anthony A Amato; Sara DeGregorio; Tanya Simuni; Tina Ward; John T Kissel; Stephen J Kolb; Amy Bartlett; Joseph F Quinn; Kellie Keith; Steven R Levine; Nadege Gilles; Patricia K Coyle; Jessica Lamb; Gil I Wolfe; Annemarie Crumlish; Luis Mejico; Muhammad Maaz Iqbal; James D Bowen; Caryl Tongco; Louis B Nabors; Khurram Bashir; Melanie Benge; Craig M McDonald; Erik K Henricson; Björn Oskarsson; Bruce H Dobkin; Catherine Canamar; Tracy A Glauser; Daniel Woo; Angela Molloy; Peggy Clark; Timothy L Vollmer; Alexander J Stein; Richard J Barohn; Mazen M Dimachkie; Jean-Baptiste Le Pichon; Michael G Benatar; Julie Steele; Lawrence Wechsler; Paula R Clemens; Christine Amity; Robert G Holloway; Christine Annis; Mark P Goldberg; Mariam Andersen; Susan T Iannaccone; A Gordon Smith; J Robinson Singleton; Mariana Doudova; E Clarke Haley; Mark S Quigg; Stephanie Lowenhaupt; Beth A Malow; Karen Adkins; David B Clifford; Mengesha A Teshome; Noreen Connolly
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2020-06-01       Impact factor: 18.302

10.  RESEARCH ETHICS. Evidence gaps and ethical review of multicenter studies.

Authors:  Ann-Margret Ervin; Holly A Taylor; Curtis L Meinert; Stephan Ehrhardt
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-11-06       Impact factor: 47.728

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.