Literature DB >> 28709585

Patients come from populations and populations contain patients. A two-stage scientific and ethics review: The next adaptation for single institutional review boards.

David Knopman1, Eli Alford2, Kaitlin Tate3, Mark Long2, Ara S Khachaturian4.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: For nearly 50 years, institutional review boards (IRB) and independent ethics committees have featured local oversight as a core function of research ethics reviews. However growing complexity in Alzheimer's clinical research suggests current approaches to research volunteer safety is hampering development of new therapeutics. As a partial response to this challenge, the NIH has mandated that all NIH-funded multi-site studies will use a single Institutional Review Board. The perspective describes a joint program to provide a single IRB of record (sIRB) for phases of multi-site studies.
METHODS: The approach follows two steps. One, an expert Scientific Review Committee (SRC) of senior researchers in the field will conduct the review principally of scientific merit, significance, feasibility, and the likelihood of meaningful results. The second step will be the IRB's regulatory and ethics review. The IRB will apply appropriate regulatory criteria for approval including minimization of risks to subjects and risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, equitable subject selection, informed consent, protections for vulnerable populations, and application of local context considerations, among others.
RESULTS: There is a steady demand for scientific, ethical and regulatory review of planned Alzheimer's studies. As of January 15, 2017, there are nearly 400 open studies, Phase II and III, industry and NIH sponsored trials on disease indications affecting memory, movement and mood in the US.
CONCLUSIONS: The effort will initially accept protocols for studies of Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and related disorders effecting memory, movement and mood. Future aims will be to provide scientific review and, where applicable, regulatory and ethical review in an international context outside North America with sites possibly in Asia, Europe and Australia.
Copyright © 2017 the Alzheimer's Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Alzheimer's; Clinical trial; Dementia; EMEA; Ethics; FDA; IRB; Intervention; Prevention; Therapeutic; Treatment

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28709585     DOI: 10.1016/j.jalz.2017.06.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Alzheimers Dement        ISSN: 1552-5260            Impact factor:   21.566


  4 in total

1.  Letter.

Authors:  Ara S Khachaturian
Journal:  Alzheimers Dement (Amst)       Date:  2017-11-21

Review 2.  Targeting Alzheimer's Disease at the Right Time and the Right Place: Validation of a Personalized Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment.

Authors:  Serge Gauthier; Kok Pin Ng; Tharick A Pascoal; Hua Zhang; Pedro Rosa-Neto
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2018       Impact factor: 4.472

3.  Research approvals iceberg: how a 'low-key' study in England needed 89 professionals to approve it and how we can do better.

Authors:  Mila Petrova; Stephen Barclay
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2019-01-25       Impact factor: 2.652

4.  Returning individual-specific results of a dementia prevalence study: insights from prospective participants living in Switzerland.

Authors:  Marta Fadda; Maddalena Fiordelli; Rebecca Amati; Ilaria Falvo; Aliaa Ibnidris; Samia Hurst; Emiliano Albanese
Journal:  Int J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2020-09-11       Impact factor: 3.485

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.