Literature DB >> 30744312

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

Holly A Taylor1, Stephan Ehrhardt2, Ann-Margret Ervin3.   

Abstract

We reviewed the public comments submitted in response to the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS's) original and revised proposal for mandated single-IRB review of federally funded multisite research to see who responded to the proposed mandate and to determine what they said and how the agency addressed the public comments in its revised proposal. Our analysis indicates that support for the single-IRB mandate was limited. The most common argument against the proposed mandate came from those concerned with the loss of site-specific institutional review board (IRB) review of the protocol for a multisite study to address issues relevant to local context. Concerns were also raised that the single-IRB approach would replace one inefficient system (that entails, for example, multiple reviews of a single study) with another potentially inefficient system (involving the negotiation and management of multiple interinstitutional agreements). Empirical research about the implementation of DHHS's final rule-and the separate rule of the National Institutes of Health-mandating single-IRB review is needed to determine whether the single-IRB model achieves the stated goals.
© 2019 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common Rule; human subjects research; local IRBs; multisite studies; research ethics; single IRBs

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 30744312      PMCID: PMC6925583          DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500002

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ethics Hum Res        ISSN: 2578-2355


  10 in total

1.  Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century.

Authors:  Kathy L Hudson; Francis S Collins
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-10-28       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Reform of Clinical Research Regulations, Finally.

Authors:  Ezekiel J Emanuel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2015-11-04       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 3.  Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Devon K Check; Kevin P Weinfurt; Carrie B Dombeck; Judith M Kramer; Kathryn E Flynn
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2013-05-10       Impact factor: 2.486

4.  Federal Research Regulations for the 21st Century.

Authors:  Bernard Lo; Mark Barnes
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2016-03-31       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Why Public Comments Matter: The Case of the National Institutes of Health Policy on Single Institutional Review Board Review of Multicenter Studies.

Authors:  Ann-Margret Ervin; Holly A Taylor; Stephan Ehrhardt; Curtis L Meinert
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 6.893

6.  Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network.

Authors:  Petra Kaufmann; P Pearl O'Rourke
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study.

Authors:  Rita McWilliams; Julie Hoover-Fong; Ada Hamosh; Suzanne Beck; Terri Beaty; Garry Cutting
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-07-16       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Ohio CTSAs implement a reliant IRB model for investigator-initiated multicenter clinical trials.

Authors:  Philip A Cola; Carson Reider; Jane E Strasser
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 4.689

9.  The Harvard Catalyst Common Reciprocal IRB Reliance Agreement: an innovative approach to multisite IRB review and oversight.

Authors:  Sabune J Winkler; Elizabeth Witte; Barbara E Bierer
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 4.689

10.  Use of a Single, Independent IRB: Case Study of an NIH Funded Consortium.

Authors:  Brandy Stoffel; Christine Sorkness; Carol Pech
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials Commun       Date:  2017-09-06
  10 in total
  3 in total

1.  Key lessons and strategies for implementing single IRB review in the Trial Innovation Network.

Authors:  Ann R Johnson; Megan Kasimatis Singleton; Julie Ozier; Emily Serdoz; Jennifer G Beadles; Janelle Maddox-Regis; Sarah Mumford; Jeri Burr; J Michael Dean; Daniel E Ford; Gordon R Bernard
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2022-04-19

Review 2.  Rethinking the role of Research Ethics Committees in the light of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Silvia Tusino; Maria Furfaro
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.716

3.  Pediatric specific challenges of the single institutional review board mandate.

Authors:  Andrew Hu; Jane L Holl; Mehul V Raval
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2022-03-21       Impact factor: 2.279

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.