Are central institutional review boards the solution? The national heart, lung, and blood institute working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process

Academic Medicine

Volumn 87, Issue 12, 2012, Pages 1710-1714

  Mascette, Alice M ^a   Bernard, Gordon R ^b   Dimichele, Donna ^a   Goldner, Jesse A ^c   Harrington, Robert ^d   Harris, Paul A ^b   Leeds, Hilary S ^a   Pearson, Thomas A ^e   Ramsey, Bonnie ^f   Wagner, Todd H ^d  

^a NATIONAL HEART LUNG AND BLOOD INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871041180     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182720859     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Protection of human subjects. Fed Regist. 1974;39:18914-18920.
2. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Staff Report: The Protecion of Human Subjects in Research
3. Conducted or Supported by Federal Agencies. February 10, 1978. http://www. archive.org/stream/protectionofhuma00unit/protectionofhuma00unit- djvu.txt.Accessed August 13, 2012.
4. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General. Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Report no. OEI-01-97-00193. http://www.oig. hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00193.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012. [No longer available.]
5. Department of Health and Human Services. Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop Summary Report. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2005.
6. Department of Health and Human Services. National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: Optimizing Human Subject Protection. Washington, DC: Association of American Medical Colleges; 2006.
7. Menikoff J. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1591-1593.
8. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Secretary 45 CFR parts 46, 160, and 164; Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR parts 50 and 56; human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay and ambiguity for investigators; advance notice of proposed rulemaking. Fed Regist. 2011;76:44512-44531.
9. Department of Health and Human Services. 45 CFR part 46; Office of Human Research Protections; institutional review boards; advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for comments. Fed Regist. 2009;74:9578-9583.
10. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1405-1408.
11. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Facilitating NHLBI clinical trials through optimization of the IRB process: Are central IRBs the solution? http://www.nhlbi.nih. gov/meetings/workshops/irb.htm. Accessed July 5, 2012.
12. Fost N, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA. 2007;298:2196-2198.
13. Dilts DM, Sandler AB. Invisible barriers to clinical trials: The impact of structural, infrastructural, and procedural barriers to opening oncology clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:4545-4552.
14. Van Dalfsen J, Ramsey B. Clinical Research Benchmarking Project. 2012. Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium. https://www.ctsacentral. org/documents/bahdocs/Van%20Dalfsen.pdf. Accessed July 5, 2012.
15. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304:1122-1123.
16. Hirshon JM, Krugman SD, Witting MD, et al. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Acad Emerg Med. 2002;9:1417-1420.
17. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA. 2003;290:360-366.
18. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:235-241.
19. IRBShare. CTSA Consortium Coordinating Center. https://www.irbshare.org/ about.php. Accessed July 5, 2012.
20. Department of Health and Human Services. OHRP. IRB Knowledge of Local Research Context. August 27, 1998 [Updated July 21, 2000]. http://www.hhs.gov/ ohrp/policy/local. html. Accessed July 5, 2012.
21. Department of Health and Human Services. OHRP. OHRP Archives: Two Guidance Documents on Multicenter Clinical Trials. January 5, 2010. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/newsroom/announcements. Accessed, 2012.
22. Institute of Medicine. Multi-Center Phase III Clinical Trials and NCI Cooperative Groups: Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2009.
23. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Vogeli C, et al. Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:2321-2329.
24. Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, et al Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics. Determining the costs of institutional review boards. IRB. 2007;29:7-13.
25. Sugarman J, Getz K, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ethics. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:1825-1827.
26. Wagner TH, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler JM, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:662-666.
27. Wagner TH, Cruz AM, Chadwick GL. Economies of scale in institutional review boards. Med Care. 2004;42:817-823.