Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials

Clinical Trials

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2015, Pages 449-456

  ORourke, P Pearl ^a   Carrithers, Judith ^b   Patrick Lake, Bray ^c   Rice, Todd W ^d   Corsmo, Jeremy ^e   Hart, Raffaella ^f   Drezner, Marc K ^g   Lantos, John D ^h  

^a PARTNERS HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e CINCINNATI CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^f Biomedical Research Alliance of New York   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^h CHILDREN S MERCY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Central institutional review board; human research protection program; institutional review boards; pragmatic clinical trials; research oversight

Indexed keywords

CENTRAL INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD; CLINICAL PROTOCOL; COMPARATIVE EFFECTIVENESS; COMPUTER PROGRAM; DATA ANALYSIS; HEALTH CARE POLICY; HUMAN; HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION PROGRAM; INSTITUTIONAL RISK; INTERINSTITUTIONAL STANDARDIZATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MULTISITE RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PRIVACY; QUALITY CONTROL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); RESEARCH OVERSIGHT HARMONIZATION; RESEARCH OVERSIGHT STREAMLINING; REVIEW; RISK; SOCIAL MEDIA; STANDARDIZATION; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DECISION MAKING; ETHICS; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DECISION MAKING; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84942944759     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774515597685     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Abbott D, Califf R, Morrison BW, et al. Cycle time metrics for multisite clinical trials in the United States. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2013; 4: 152-160.
2. Califf RM, Sugarman J,. Exploring the ethical and regulatory issues in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 436-441.
3. Sugarman J, Califf RM,. Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 2014; 311: 2381-2382.
4. Gold JL, Dewa CS,. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 291-307.
5. Petersen LA, Simpson K, Sorelle R, et al. How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Ann Intern Med 2012; 156: 728-735.
6. Stark AR, Tyson JE, Hibberd PL,. Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol 2010; 30: 163-169.
7. Helfand BT, Mongiu AK, Roehrborn CG, et al. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol 2009; 181: 2674-2679.
8. Harvie HS, Lowenstein L, Omotosho TB, et al. Institutional review board variability in minimal-risk multicenter urogynecology studies. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg 2012; 18: 89-92.
9. Stair TO, Reed CR, Radeos MS, et al. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8: 636-641.
10. Lee DC, Peak DA, Jones JS, et al. Variations in institutional review board reviews of a multi-center, Emergency Department (ED)-based genetic research protocol. Am J Emerg Med 2013; 31: 967-969.
11. Silberman G, Kahn KL,. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q 2011; 89: 599-627.
12. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States. PLoS ONE 2013; 8: e54999.
13. Midwest Area Research Consortium for Health, https://ictr.wisc.edu/march (. accessed 29 January 2015).
14. Wisconsin Network for Health Research, https://ictr.wisc.edu/winhr (. accessed 29 January 2015).
15. Greater Plains Collaborative, http://www.gpcnetwork.org/ (. accessed 29 January 2015).
16. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Central Institutional Review Board., http://www.research.va.gov/vacentralirb/ (. accessed 13 January 2015).
17. National Cancer Institute. Central Institutional Review Board Initiative., https://www.ncicirb.org (. accessed 13 January 2015).
18. National Institutes of Health. NIH Network for Excellence in Neuroscience Clinical Trials., https://www.neuronext.org/ (. accessed 13 January 2015).
19. Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY), http://www.branyirb.com/ (. accessed 29 January 2015).
20. Vanderbilt University. IRBshare Collaboration., https://www4.vanderbilt.edu/irb/irbshare/ (. accessed 13 January 2015).
21. Kaufmann PG, ORourke PP,. Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network. Acad Med 2015; 90: 321-323.
22. Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI). Considerations document: CTTI use of central IRBs in multicenter clinical trials., http://www.ctti-clinicaltrials.org/what-we-do/study-start/central-irb (. accessed 22 September 2014).
23. Lantos JD, Wendler D, Septimus E, et al. Considerations in the evaluation and determination of minimal risk in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 485-493.
24. McKinney RE Jr, Beskow LM, Ford DE, et al. Use of altered informed consent in pragmatic clinical research. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 494-502.
25. Lantos JD, Spertus JA,. The concept of risk in comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 884.
26. OHRP and standard-of-care research. N Engl J Med 2014; 371: 2125-2126.
27. Kass N, Faden R, Tunis S,. Addressing low-risk comparative effectiveness research in proposed changes to US federal regulations governing research. JAMA 2012; 307: 1589-1590.
28. Miller FG, Emanuel EJ,. Quality-improvement research and informed consent. N Engl J Med 2008; 358: 765-767.
29. Conway M,. Ethical issues in using Twitter for public health surveillance and research: developing a taxonomy of ethical concepts from the research literature. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16: e290.
30. Glenn T, Monteith S,. Privacy in the digital world: medical and health data outside of HIPAA protections. Curr Psychiatry Rep 2014; 16: 494.
31. Arsand E, Froisland DH, Skrovseth SO, et al. Mobile health applications to assist patients with diabetes: lessons learned and design implications. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2012; 6: 1197-1206.
32. Krishnamoorthy S,. Nanostructured sensors for biomedical applications-a current perspective. Curr Opin Biotechnol 2015; 34: 118-124.
33. Boudreaux ED, Waring ME, Hayes RB, et al. Evaluating and selecting mobile health apps: strategies for healthcare providers and healthcare organizations. Transl Behav Med 2014; 4: 363-371.
34. Research2Guidance, http://research2guidance.com/500m-people-will-be-using-healthcare-mobile-applications-in-2015/ (. accessed 30 January 2015).
35. Martinez-Perez B, de la Torre-Diez I, Lopez-Coronado M,. Privacy and security in mobile health apps: a review and recommendations. J Med Syst 2015; 39: 181.
36. McGraw D, Greene SM, Miner CS, et al. Privacy and confidentiality in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 520-529.
37. Smalley JB, Merritt MW, Al-Khatib SM, et al. Ethical responsibilities toward indirect and collateral participants in pragmatic clinical trials. Clin Trials, 2015; 12: 476-484.
38. Taljaard M, Brehaut JC, Weijer C, et al. Variability in research ethics review of cluster randomized trials: a scenario-based survey in three countries. Trials 2014; 15: 48.
39. Menikoff J,. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1591-1593.