Search

The nature of the review of local context by institutional review boards (IRBs) is vague. Requirements for single IRB review of multicenter trials create a need to better understand interpretation and implementation of local‐context review and how to best implement such reviews centrally. We sought a pragmatic understanding of IRB local‐context review by exploring stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions. Semistructured interviews with 26 IRB members and staff members, institutional officials, and investigators were integrated with 80 surveys of similar stakeholders and analyzed with qualitative theme‐based text analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. Stakeholders described what they considered to be local context, the value of local‐context review, and key processes used to implement review of local context in general and for emergency research conducted with an exception from informed consent. Concerns and potential advantages of centralized review of local context were expressed. Variability in perspectives suggests that local‐context review is not a discrete process, which presents opportunities for defining pathways for single IRB review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH‐funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in‐depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background The Common Rule Revision (CRR) mandates a single institutional review board (IRB) for all US federally funded nonexempt multisite human participant research. While the CRR aims to improve research efficiency, its success in pediatric research remains uncertain Main body There are multiple challenges that threaten the purported efficiency of the single IRB mandate. While the CRR is clear that ethical review is the purview of the single IRB, responsibility for issues of local study governance are less well defined. Therefore, reliance agreements (RA) must be negotiated between single IRBs and participating institutions. These negotiations can vary significantly based upon the institution’s local context and are often arduous, lengthy, and burdensome. Furthermore, in pediatric research, issues such as assent, surrogate consent, and IRB risk determination add additional layers of complexity that must be considered. No clear system exists for resolving disagreements surrounding these critical human participant protection issues. Finally, the variation in institutional resources directed towards pediatric research may mean that only a select few pediatric institutions will be able to function in the single IRB system. These challenges will need to be overcome to successfully implement the CRR and achieve its objective of improving multisite research efficiency. We suggest that an empiric and collaborative approach utilizing implementation strategies is necessary for the CRR and single IRBs to be effective. Conclusion The CRR seeks to improve the efficiency of multisite human participant research in the US. There are multiple challenges that will need to be overcome. An empiric collaborative approach is necessary. If successful, single IRBs have the potential to usher in a new era of impactful and efficient multisite pediatric research.

Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.

Single IRB (SIRB) consultation resources were established by the Utah Trial Innovation Center to assist and educate investigative teams prior to the submission of funding applications for multisite, cooperative research. Qualitative analysis of the written consultation materials and meeting minutes revealed the most common areas of education needed by investigative teams, including (a) the differences and relationships between the IRB and a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP); (b) the main phases of the SIRB process; and (c) the use of technology platforms for documentation of SIRB review processes. For investigative teams who are inexperienced with using a SIRB, such consultation in the pre-award period is likely to fill in knowledge gaps and improve the study start-up process.

The Trial Innovation Network has established an infrastructure for single IRB review in response to federal policies. The Network's single IRB (sIRBs) have successfully supported over 70 multisite studies via more than 800 reliance arrangements. This has generated several lessons learned that can benefit the national clinical research enterprise, as we work to improve the conduct of clinical trials. These lessons include distinguishing the roles of the single IRB from institutional Human Research Protections programs, establishing a consistent sIRB review model, standardizing collection of local context and supplemental, study-specific information, and educating and empowering lead study teams to support their sites. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Trial Innovation Network has established an infrastructure for single IRB review in response to federal policies. The Network’s single IRB (sIRBs) have successfully supported over 70 multisite studies via more than 800 reliance arrangements. This has generated several lessons learned that can benefit the national clinical research enterprise, as we work to improve the conduct of clinical trials. These lessons include distinguishing the roles of the single IRB from institutional Human Research Protections programs, establishing a consistent sIRB review model, standardizing collection of local context and supplemental, study-specific information, and educating and empowering lead study teams to support their sites.

In 2014, the Request for Applications from the National Institutes of Health. (NIH) for continued funding of a multi-site clinical and mechanistic research. Network, Inner City Asthma Consortium (ICAC), called for “efficient IRB review. And approval for multi-center studies” and “IRB approval within 30 days from. Submission”. These requirements were precursors to the NIH policy of single. IRB review for multi-site studies. Here we share our challenges, implementation processes, results, and recommendations, using a single, independent IRB.

In 2016, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a new policy requiring single institutional review board (sIRB) review for multisite studies. However, adherence to the new policy requires the separation of regulatory institutional review board (IRB) work per Federal guidance from site-specific local compliance concerns. In particular, genomic research is subject to a wide range of state laws, institutional requirements, and local population preferences. In this qualitative study, we explored the anticipated needs of genomics researchers and IRB administrators around implementing the policy. We observed multiple uncertainties, particularly about intersite communication processes, sIRB selection processes, and roles of the reviewing IRB and local sites regarding local context information relevant to genomics. Optimal implementation of the NIH policy may require additional guidance for researchers and IRB administrators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implementing the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) new single institutional review board (IRB) policy has caused a paradigm shift in IRB review across the country. IRBs and human research protection programs are looking more closely at their processes for ceding review and developing procedures to handle local review when relying on a single IRB. This article describes an NIH‐funded network that proactively instituted a central IRB (CIRB) in 2012, anticipating the NIH future mandate. Lessons learned are described. There was a steep learning curve for IRBs and participating sites. IRB submission workload burden shifted from study teams to the data coordinating center, which created new workflow challenges, especially preparing hundreds of consent documents centrally. Despite difficulties encountered with CIRB review, this network is now fully functioning under a CIRB model. Further review and experience are needed to determine whether this shift in IRB review has eliminated duplicative review or regulatory burden from study teams. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consistency, standardization, speed and efficiency, and simplification are reported benefits. Challenges include timeliness of the research review process, insufficient communication, and uncertainty at local institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]