Search

Independent ethics committees play an important role in clinical trials as well as in all health-related research. Internationally, the national laws of the individual countries have guided their local development and organisation over the decades. Directive 2001/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council explicitly recognised the ethics committees' duty to protect the rights, safety and well-being of human subjects involved in trials and to provide public assurance of that protection. Regulation (EU) 536/2014, which repealed the aforesaid directive, provides that a clinical trial must be subjected to scientific and ethical review, without specifically defining what they consist in. The divide between the evaluation of the ethical value and the scientific value of a study is very faint and, for some, it may even appear a meaningless distinction. While Regulation (EU) 536/2014 requires Member States to ensure that ethics committees are involved in the assessment process within their national territory, it does not require such ethical assessment to be binding. This article proposes a possible system for interaction between ethics committees and local regulatory authorities in which the meaning and purpose of the ethical assessment are conceptually clearly defined and not narrow., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

There are many differences between Asian regions in terms of the regulatory requirements and operational procedures in conducting international academic clinical trials for the approval of new drugs. The National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan has launched an international investigator-initiated registration-directed trial (IIRDT) in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, aiming at obtaining pharmaceutical approval in participating regions. Differences in regulatory and operational procedures were identified while coordinating the trial. In Japan, regulatory authority reviews should be performed after approval by institutional review boards for IIRDT, whereas in other regions these can be done in parallel. There were disparities in Good Manufacturing Practice-related documents between regions. Several differences were found regarding investigational product (IP) management, specifically concerning labeling, import/export procedures, and customs clearance costs. On the other hand, safety reporting procedures were relatively well-harmonized in accordance with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (ICH-E2A). Regions also differed in per-patient costs, due to varying regulations for academic registration-directed trials. In conclusion, the observed differences among Asian regions should be harmonized to facilitate international academic trials in Asia and thus resolve unmet patient needs worldwide. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? International clinical trials have become common because they make it possible to accrue patients faster and obtain new drug approval in wider areas. However, pharmaceutical regulatory differences hinder the efficient conduct of international clinical trials, especially in academia. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? We conducted an academic international clinical trial on new drug applications in four Asian countries and clarified pharmaceutical regulatory differences and operational difficulties. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? The study identified differences between countries in terms of regulatory affairs, institutional review board (IRB) review processes, investigational new drug (IND) dossiers, investigational product (IP) management procedures, and clinical trial costs, while safety reporting procedures were relatively harmonized. Japan utilizes investigator-initiated registration-directed trials, an advanced regulatory system for new drug application by academia, but the other countries do not. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Harmonization of pharmaceutical regulations and trial initiation procedures, and regulatory reform of clinical trial costs are important to accelerate academic international clinical trials for new drug applications., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

There has been a good deal of discussion in the literature regarding which subjects are vulnerable in the context of clinical trials. There has been significantly less discussion regarding when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials. This lack of guidance is a particular problem for trials covered by the US regulations, which mandate strict requirements on the inclusion of three groups: pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children. For the past 30 years, funders, investigators, and institutional review boards have frequently responded to these regulations by excluding pregnant women/fetuses, prisoners, and children from clinical trials. More recent work has emphasized the extent to which a default of exclusion can undermine the value of clinical trials, especially pragmatic trials. A default of exclusion also has the potential to undermine the interests of vulnerable groups, in both the short and the long term. These concerns raise the need for guidance on how to satisfy existing US regulations, while minimizing their negative impact on the value of clinical trials and the interests of vulnerable groups. The present manuscript thus describes a six-step decision procedure that institutional review boards can use to determine when and how to include vulnerable subjects in clinical trials, including pragmatic trials, that are covered by US regulations.

Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for overseeing research involving human participants is critically important but perpetually challenging. Seemingly common-sense measures, such as the number of proposals approved with and without major modifications and the number of unexpected adverse events occurring in approved protocols, can be misleading indicators of participant protection, and regulatory compliance may not correspond to achieving ethical goals. These measurement challenges make it difficult to assess the validity of concerns about different IRB models. A group of U.S. senators recently raised questions about the increasing use of for-profit IRBs to review research proposals (as opposed to boards typically housed at academic medical centers and health care institutions) and, more specifically, about the growing trend of private equity ownership and consolidation of for-profit IRBs. Although all IRBs face pressure to speed reviews and none are entirely free of conflicts of interest, the private equity model is particularly susceptible to approaches that could undercut the ethical mission of IRBs to protect and promote the rights and welfare of research participants. Ideally, the quality of board oversight could be measured directly, rather than relying on the heuristic of board type; this article describes several current efforts toward this goal. In the meantime, one improvement may be to pursue a new model of IRB oversight: independent nonprofit boards that stand apart from research institutions, take advantage of business approaches to research review, and minimize conflicts of interest.

Embedded pragmatic clinical trials (ePCTs) present an opportunity to improve care for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their care partners, but they also generate a complex constellation of ethical and regulatory challenges. These challenges begin with participant identification. Interventions may be delivered in ways that make it difficult to identify who is a human subject and therefore who needs ethical and regulatory protections. The need for informed consent, a core human subjects protection, must be considered but can be in tension with the goals of pragmatic research design. Thus it is essential to consider whether a waiver or alteration of informed consent is justifiable. If informed consent is needed, the question arises of how it should be obtained because researchers must acknowledge the vulnerability of PLWD due in part to diminished capacity and also to increased dependence on others. Further, researchers should recognize that many sites where ePCTs are conducted will be unfamiliar with human subjects research regulations and ethics. In this report, the Regulation and Ethics Core of the National Institute on Aging Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer's disease (AD) and AD-related dementias (AD/ADRD) Clinical Trials (IMPACT) Collaboratory discusses key ethical and regulatory challenges for ePCTs in PLWD. A central thesis is that researchers should strive to anticipate and address these challenges early in the design of their ePCTs as a means of both ensuring compliance and advancing science. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:S37-S42, 2020., (© 2020 The American Geriatrics Society.)

This article considers a case in which a prominent researcher repeatedly made protocol deviations year after year while the institutional review board and university leadership failed to adequately address his continuing noncompliance. This article argues that, in addition to reporting this researcher's pattern of noncompliance to the Office for Human Research Protections, as required by federal regulations, the university should implement a remedial action plan., (© 2020 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

Research ethics regulation in parts of the Global North has sometimes been initiated in the face of biomedical scandal. More recently, developing and recently developed countries have had additional reasons to regulate, doing so to attract international clinical trials and American research funding, publish in international journals, or to respond to broader social changes. In Taiwan, biomedical research ethics policy based on 'principlism' and committee-based review were imported from the United States. Professionalisation of research ethics displaced other longer-standing ways of conceiving ethics connected with Taiwanese cultural traditions. Subsequently, the model and its discursive practices were extended to other disciplines. Regulation was also shaped by decolonizing discourses associated with asserting Indigenous peoples' rights. Locating research ethics regulation within the language and practices of public policy formation and transfer as well as decolonization, allows analysis to move beyond the self-referential and attend to the social, economic and political context within which regulation operates., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The globalization of clinical research in the last two decades has led to a significant increase in the volume of clinical research in developing countries. As of 2016, Uganda was the third largest destination for clinical trials in Africa. This requires adequate capacity and systems to facilitate ethical practice., Methods: This was a retrospective study involving review of laws, guidelines, policies and records from 1896 to date., Results: Modern medicine evolved from 1896 and by the time of Uganda's independence in 1962, a 1500 bed national referral hospital was in place and a fully-fledged medical school was established at the Makerere University. As the practice of medicine evolved in the country, so did medical research that addressed priority health issues. The growth in modern medicine was not matched with development of research infrastructure and regulatory systems. The first documented regulation of research activities was in 1970 while the first research ethics committee established in 1986 was to facilitate review of research related to the HIV/AIDs pandemic. In 1990 an Act of Parliament was passed to facilitate development and implementation of policies, hence the development of the national guidelines in 1997, training, establishment and accreditation of research ethics committees, conferences and research site monitoring., Conclusion: Over the past 120 years, the implementation and structural aspects of research ethics in Uganda have evolved through 70 years of no regulation, followed by 30 years of rudimentary regulation while the last 20 years have shown significant growth in the regulatory system associated with supportive laws, institutionalization of regulatory and training processes., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The legislation of Italy and the European Union requires a shift in terms of the organisation and national regulation of ethics committees and clinical trials. More generally, this affects the entire sphere of biomedical research. The first part of this contribution provides a brief review of the history of ethics committees in Italy. We then discuss the current situation and formulate proposals. There is a vital need for rules that promote efficiency of ethics committees, to guarantee that Italy's position remains competitive and attractive within the European Union.

Implementation of existing ethical guidelines for international collaborative medical and health research is still largely controversial in sub-Saharan Africa for two major reasons: One, they are seen as foreign and allegedly inconsistent with what has been described as an 'African worldview', hence, demand for their strict implementations reeks of 'bioethical imperialism'. Two, they have other discernible inadequacies - lack of sufficient detail, apparent as well as real ambiguities, vagueness and contradictions. Similar charges exist(ed) in other non-Western societies. Consequently, these guidelines have been correctly judged as an inadequate response to the complex and ever shifting dilemmas met by researchers and research regulators in the field. This paper proposes a framework for effective implementation of existing guidelines without much worry about bioethical imperialism and other inadequacies. This framework is proposed using an analogy of Legal Realism, specifically its key assertions on how, in reality, judicial systems operate using general legal rules to settle specific cases. Legal realists assert that in judicial decision-making, general legal rules do not totally dictate court decisions in specific cases. This analogy is used to coin a new term, 'Bioethical Realism.' The framework suggests that local Research Ethics Committees ought to be construed as analogues of judicial courts with the resulting implications. Consequently, just like legal rules are general rules that do not always dictate court decisions, similarly international bioethical guidelines are general ethical rules that should not always dictate local RECs' decisions and such decisions (ought to) enjoy considerable immunity from outsiders., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

For the first time, the revised Common Rule specifies that public health surveillance activities are not research. This article reviews the historical development of the public health surveillance exclusion and implications for other foundational public health practices.

This paper looks at the implications of changes to the regulatory governance of human participant research that can be expected with implementation of the Revised Common Rule (RCR). The RCR refers to revisions of the existing federal regulations that govern the performance of research involving human subjects (ie, clinical research) in the United States and, under certain circumstances, when such research is also performed outside the United States. The term "common" is included because it refers to the fact that these regulations, often referred to as Code of Federal Regulations 46, is the common denominator regulations agreed to across a wide swath of federal agencies., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Chest Physicians. All rights reserved.)

Background: The red tape and delays around research ethics and governance approvals frequently frustrate researchers yet, as the lesser of two evils, are largely accepted as unavoidable. Here we quantify aspects of the research ethics and governance approvals for one interview- and questionnaire-based study conducted in England which used the National Health Service (NHS) procedures and the electronic Integrated Research Application System (IRAS). We demonstrate the enormous impact of existing approvals processes on costs of studies, including opportunity costs to focus on the substantive research, and suggest directions for radical system change., Main Text: We have recorded 491 exchanges with 89 individuals involved in research ethics and governance approvals, generating 193 pages of email text excluding attachments. These are conservative estimates (e.g. only records of the research associate were used). The exchanges were conducted outside IRAS, expected to be the platform where all necessary documents are provided and questions addressed. Importantly, the figures exclude the actual work of preparing the ethics documentation (such as the ethics application, information sheets and consent forms). We propose six areas of work to enable system change: 1. Support the development of a broad range of customised research ethics and governance templates to complement generic, typically clinical trials orientated, ones; 2. Develop more sophisticated and flexible frameworks for study classification; 3. Link with associated processes for assessment, feedback, monitoring and reporting, such as ones involving funders and patient and public involvement groups; 4. Invest in a new generation IT infrastructure; 5. Enhance system capacity through increasing online reviewer participation and training; and 6. Encourage researchers to quantify the approvals processes for their studies., Conclusion: Ethics and governance approvals are burdensome for historical reasons and not because of the nature of the task. There are many opportunities to improve their efficiency and analytic depth in an age of innovation, increased connectivity and distributed working. If we continue to work under current systems, we are perpetuating, paradoxically, an unethical system of research approvals by virtue of its wastefulness and impoverished ethical debate.

This article describes oversight mechanisms for clinical research that have developed substantially over the last few decades, including institutional review boards and data safety and monitoring boards. LeRoy Walters and others in the 1970s in the US thoughtfully described the importance of fundamental ethical principles and the application of bioethics to clinical research. Dr. Walters's important essay and work with the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research helped identify and explain ethical principles that guide research. These principles, subsequently enunciated by the Commission in the Belmont Report, remain central to our understanding of the ethics of clinical research and are the foundation of our regulations. In this article, I review some history, successes, and challenges of IRBs and DSMBs to exemplify the significance of understanding and applying ethical principles to the design and conduct of clinical research, and to honor Dr. Walters's contributions.

There is a growing body of literature that has sought to undermine systems of ethical regulation, and governance more generally, within the social sciences. In this paper, we argue that any general claim for a system of research ethics governance in social research depends on clarifying the nature of the stake that society has in research. We show that certain accounts of this stake-protecting researchers' freedoms; ensuring accountability for resources; safeguarding welfare; and supporting democracy-raise relevant ethical considerations that are reasonably contested. However, these accounts cannot underpin a general claim in favour of, or against, a system of research ethics governance. Instead, we defend governance in social research on the grounds that research, as an institutionalised form of enquiry, is a constitutive element of human flourishing, and that society ought to be concerned with the flourishing of its members. We conclude by considering the governance arrangements that follow from, and are justified by, our arguments., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

The Law of 3 January 2018 established in Italy the "National Centre for the Coordination of Regional Ethics Committees for Clinical Trials of Medicines and Medical Devices for Human Use" and reduced the number of ethics committees in the country to 40. This Act should, amongst other things, facilitate Italy's compliance with the provisions set forth in European Regulation (EU) 536/2014. Hopefully, in addition to the provisions set forth in the Law, the National Centre will strive to foster the harmonisation of ethics committee procedures, in order to reform Italian legislation on the evaluation of clinical trials and, more generally, biomedical studies.

The European Network of Teratology Information Services (ENTIS) is in a privileged position to perform independent post-marketing surveillance of drugs in pregnancy. The aim of this survey was to describe the legal requirements and procedures involved in obtaining ethical approval for collaborative cohort studies. We sent a survey questionnaire to all 28 Teratology Information Services (TIS), of which 25 (89%) in 18 countries completed our questionnaire. For 15 TIS, specific research ethical approval was mandatory. The review process was estimated to last from 2 up to 16 weeks. Procedures for patients' information and consent were oral (12), written (5) or both (3). Five TIS had no requirement to inform patients and seek consent. Since data on drug exposure during pregnancy are scarce, ENTIS research efforts should be further encouraged, and procedures optimized so that legitimate ethical and legal requirements do not translate into deterrent administrative constraints and costs., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requested public comments on a draft policy requiring NIH-funded, U.S.-based investigators to use a single institutional review board (sIRB) for ethical review of multicenter studies. The authors conducted a directed content analysis and qualitative summary of the comments and discuss how they shaped the final policy., Method: Two reviewers independently assessed support for the policy from a review of comments on the draft policy in 2016. A reviewer conducted an open text review to identify prespecified and additional comment themes. A second researcher reviewed 20% of comments; discrepancies were resolved through discussion., Results: The NIH received 167 comments: 65% (108/167) supportive of the policy, 23% (38/167) not supportive, and 12% (21/167) not indicating support. Clarifications or changes to the policy were suggested in 102/167 comments (61%). Criteria for selecting sIRBs were addressed in 32/102 comments (31%). Also addressed were institutional review board (IRB) responsibilities (39/102; 38%), cost (27/102; 26%), the role of local IRBs (14/102; 14%), and allowable policy exceptions (19/102; 19%). The NIH further clarified or provided guidance for selection criteria, IRB responsibilities, and cost in the final policy (June 2016). Local IRB reviews and exemptions guidance were unchanged., Conclusions: In this case study, public comments were effective in shaping policy as the NIH modified provisions or planned supplemental guidance in response to comments. Yet critical knowledge gaps remain, and empirical data are necessary. The NIH is considering mechanisms to support the establishment of best practices for sIRB implementation.

The new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for Multi-Site Research was adopted primarily to simplify and speed the review of complex multisite clinical trials. However, speeding review requires overcoming a number of obstacles. Perhaps the most substantial obstacle is the time and effort needed to develop reliance agreements among the participating sites. We conducted 102 semistructured interviews with sIRB personnel, including directors, chairs, reviewers, and staff, from 20 IRBs that acted as sIRBs for multisite research, including 6 commercial/independent sIRBs, and 10 university-based academic and 4 federal sIRBs. Almost without exception, the interviewees agreed that reliance agreements were complex, difficult to develop, and time-consuming. A major problem for relying sites was that different agreements specified different responsibilities for the relying sites. Attitudes differed about whether these problems will be resolved as IRB staff and managers become more experienced with sIRBs. However it is clear that the process of developing reliance agreements must be simplified. Federal assistance in standardizing at least some sections of reliance agreements might reduce the difficulties involved.

Background: The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access., Methods: We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified., Results: Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access., Conclusions: Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

The year 2017 marks both the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg Code and the first major revisions of federal research regulations in almost 3 decades. I suggest that the informed consent provisions of the federal research regulations continue to follow the requirements of the Nuremberg Code. However, modifications are needed to the informed consent (and institutional review board) provisions to make the revised federal regulations more effective in promoting a genuine conversation between the researcher and the research subject. This conversation must take seriously both the therapeutic illusion and the desire of both the researcher and the research subject not to engage in sharing uncertainty.

The scope of ethics in health research transcends its legal framework and the regulations established in Resolution 8430 of 1993. These norms represent a fundamental tool to determine the minimum protection standards for research subjects, and, therefore, they should be known, applied properly, and reflect upon by all researchers in the field.Here I present and discuss from an analytical point of view the regulations that guide research in health. In this framework, health is understood as a multidimensional process, and research in health as a multidisciplinary exercise involving basic, clinical and public health research, collective health, and other related sciences.The main analytical categories are related to the principles and actors involved in research (regulatory authorities, ethical committees, and special or vulnerable subjects and populations), and to professional ethics codes, in addition to informed consents and data management.Despite the contribution of this legislation to the qualification of health research, my conclusion is that the national legislation in ethics for health research requires updating regarding technological and scientific developments, as well as specifications from the multiple types of health studies.

While ethnographic study has described the discussions that occur during human subjects research ethics review, investigators have minimal access to the interactions of ethics oversight committees. They instead receive letters stipulating changes to their proposed studies. Ethics committee letters are central to the practice of research ethics: they change the nature of research, alter the knowledge it produces, and in doing so construct what ethical research is and how it is pursued. However, these letters have rarely been objects of analysis. Accordingly, we conducted a qualitative analysis of letters written by American institutional review boards (IRBs) overseeing biomedical and health behavioral research. We sought to clarify how IRBs exercise their authority by assessing the frequency with which they provided reasons for their stipulations as well as the nature of these reasons. We found that IRBs frequently do not justify their stipulations; rather, they often leave ethical or regulatory concerns implicit or frame their comments as boilerplate language replacements, procedural instructions, or demands for missing information. When they do provide justifications, their rationales exhibit substantial variability in explicitness and clarity. These rhetorical tendencies indicate that the authority of IRBs is grounded primarily in their role as bureaucratic gatekeepers. We conclude by suggesting that greater attention to justification could help shift the basis of the IRB-researcher relationship from compliance to mutual accountability., (Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The history of health research, and concerns about the protection of human participants, dates back as far as the 1800s. The regulation, legislation and ethics-review requirements regarding the protection of the human research participants cause lively debates among researchers and scientists. The objective of this article is to share the findings of a structured review that was aimed at investigating the impact of and challenges with regard to the legislation, governance and research regulations aimed at protecting human research participants. The thematic analysis of the findings revealed dissatisfaction with diverse operational practices; different legislation and regulation practices; and institutional governance. Simplified and universally agreed-upon regulations and operational practices are needed, as is a common understanding of all concepts relating to ethical research conduct.

The recent Common Rule revision process took almost a decade and the resulting changes are fairly modest, particularly when compared to the ambitious ideas proposed in the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) and notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). Furthermore, the revision process did not even attempt to tackle any of the Common Rule subparts pertaining to vulnerable populations (i.e., pregnant women and fetuses, prisoners, children) where commentators think the rules unduly restrict important research. We believe that this was a missed opportunity to make desirable changes, and that given the usual process the next opportunity to revisit the Common Rule is unacceptably remote. In this article, we argue that the Common Rule should be regularly reassessed, with a mechanism for making substantive (and expeditious) changes. Drawing on lessons learned from the recent revision process, we make recommendations about ways to structure future attempts to maximize the ability to make timely and necessary changes.

Ten years after the approval of the Chilean bill that regulates scientific research in humans (Law Nº 20.120), and considering the current status of accreditation and training of many Research Ethics Committee (REC), it is necessary to analyze their performance. We analyzed the Chilean experience with REC aiming to propose a differential type of review, considering the risks to research participants. To improve the quality of the review and the efficiency of these committees, we propose to differentiate the revisions depending on the type of project, its methods and its risks. Initially, the types of review should be classified as exempt from review, expedited review and full review by the committee. In this proposal the type of review is confirmed or can be modified by a designated member of the committee after an initial review of the project. Thus, the deliberation and review times of the committee could be optimized avoiding delays in their revision.

Despite widespread therapeutic needs, the majority of medical and surgical devices used in children do not have approval or clearance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in pediatric populations. The clinical need for devices to diagnose and treat diseases or conditions occurring in children has led to the widespread and necessary practice in pediatric medicine and surgery of using approved devices for "off-label" or "physician-directed" applications that are not included in FDA-approved labeling. This practice is common and often appropriate, even with the highest-risk (class III) devices. The legal and regulatory framework used by the FDA for devices is complex, and economic or market barriers to medical and surgical device development for children are significant. Given the need for pediatric medical and surgical devices and the challenges to pediatric device development, off-label use is a necessary and appropriate part of care. In addition, because of the relatively uncommon nature of pediatric conditions, FDA clearance or approval often requires other regulatory pathways (eg, Humanitarian Device Exemption), which can cause confusion among pediatricians and payers about whether a specific use, even of an approved device, is considered experimental. This policy statement describes the appropriateness of off-label use of devices in children; the use of devices approved or cleared through the FDA regulatory processes, including through the Humanitarian Device Exemption; and the important need to increase pediatric device labeling information for all devices and especially those that pose the highest risk to children., (Copyright © 2017 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: According to Law 14/2007 and Royal Decree 1090/2015, biomedical research must be assessed by an Research Ethics Committee (REC), which must be accredited as an Research ethics committee for clinical trials involving medicinal products (RECm) if the opinion is issued for a clinical trial involving medicinal products or clinical research with medical devices. The aim of this study is to ascertain how IEC and IECm accreditation is regulated., Methods: National and regional legislation governing biomedical research was analysed., Results: No clearly-defined IEC or IECm accreditation procedures exist in the national or regional legislation., Discussion: Independent Ethics Committees are vital for the development of basic or clinical biomedical research, and they must be accredited by an external body in order to safeguard their independence, multidisciplinary composition and review procedures., (Copyright © 2016 SESPAS. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is growing consensus that individual genetic research results that are scientifically robust, analytically valid, and clinically actionable should be offered to research participants. However, the general practice in European research projects is that results are usually not provided to research participants for many reasons. This article reports on the views of European experts and scholars who are members of the European COST Action CHIP ME IS1303 (Citizen's Health through public-private Initiatives: Public health, Market and Ethical perspectives) regarding challenges to the feedback of individual genetic results to research participants in Europe and potential strategies to address these challenges., Materials and Methods: A consultation of the COST Action members was conducted through an email survey and a workshop. The results from the consultation were analyzed following a conventional content analysis approach., Results: Legal frameworks, professional guidelines, and financial, organizational, and human resources to support the feedback of results are largely missing in Europe. Necessary steps to facilitate the feedback process include clarifying legal requirements to the feedback of results, developing harmonized European best practices, promoting interdisciplinary and cross-institutional collaboration, designing educational programs and cost-efficient IT-based platforms, involving research ethics committees, and documenting the health benefits and risks of the feedback process., Conclusions: Coordinated efforts at pan-European level are needed to enable equitable, scientifically sound, and socially robust feedback of results to research participants.

Currently, there is no single, Europe-wide regulation of biomedical research using human samples and data. Instead, the law that applies spans a number of areas of law, such as data protection, clinical trials, and tissue regulation. In the absence of harmonized regulation, there is considerable scope for national legal variation. This article analyzes the legislative frameworks that apply to biobanking activities to identify differences in legal requirements between the BioSHaRE-EU project countries: Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. This article highlights the primary role of consent and accompanying governance mechanisms, such as research ethics committee oversight, which enable consent exemptions in the context of research. Our analysis identifies a complicated legal landscape, whereby broadly similar provisions are contained in varied sources of law in each jurisdiction. The challenge for researchers is locating the applicable legal provisions within each national legal framework.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is amending the regulation describing lesser administrative actions that may be imposed on an Institutional Review Board (IRB) that has failed to comply with FDA's IRB regulations. We are clarifying that FDA may require the IRB to withhold approval of new FDA-regulated studies, stop the enrollment of new subjects in ongoing studies, and terminate ongoing studies, or any combination of these actions until the noncompliance with FDA's IRB regulations is corrected. We are taking this action to ensure clarity and improve the accuracy of the regulations.

The Affordable Care Act includes provisions for the conduct of large-scale, patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Such efforts aim toward the laudable moral goal of having evidence to improve health care decision making. Nevertheless, these pragmatic clinical research efforts that typically pose minimal incremental risk and are enmeshed in routine care settings perhaps surprisingly encounter an array of ethics and regulatory challenges and opportunities for academic health centers. An emphasis on patient-centeredness forces an examination of the appropriateness of traditional methods used to protect the rights, interests, and welfare of participants. At the same time, meaningful collaboration with patients throughout the research process also necessitates ensuring that novel approaches to research (including recruitment and consent) entail necessary protections regarding such issues as privacy. As the scientific and logistical aspects of this research are being developed, substantial attention is being focused on the accompanying ethics and regulatory issues that have emerged, which should help to facilitate ethically appropriate research in a variety of contexts.

EU Regulation 536/2014 stipulates that when assessing applications for authorisation to conduct clinical trials, Member States should formulate a 'single decision'. This raises the problem of identifying: (1) the facility designated to express this 'single decision' and (2) the role of ethics committees in the decision-making process. The article addresses the consequences of the requirement that for each Member State the assessment of an application for approval to conduct a trial must take the form of a 'single decision' by the Member State concerned. Three possible approaches to the procedures for expressing that 'single decision' and to the role of ethics committees in the decision-making process are described, one of which is indicated as the preferred option., (Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/)

Background: The aim of this paper is to compare common features and variation in the work of research ethics committees (RECs) in Finland to three other countries - England, Canada, the United States of America (USA) - in the late 2000s., Methods: Several approaches and data sources were used, including semi- or unstructured interviews of experts, documents, previous reports, presentations in meetings and observations. A theoretical framework was created and data from various sources synthesized., Results: In Finland, RECs were regulated by a medical research law, whereas in the other countries many related laws and rules guided RECs; drug trials had specific additional rules. In England and the USA, there was a REC control body. In all countries, members were voluntary and included lay-persons, and payment arrangements varied. Patient protection was the main ethics criteria, but other criteria (research advancement, availability of results, payments, detailed fulfilment of legislation) varied. In all countries, RECs had been given administrative duties. Variations by country included the mandate, practical arrangements, handling of multi-site research, explicitness of proportionate handlings, judging scientific quality, time-limits for decisions, following of projects, role in institute protection, handling conflicts of interests, handling of projects without informed consent, and quality assurance research. The division of work between REC members and secretariats varied in checking of formalities. In England, quality assurance of REC work was thorough, fairly thorough in the USA, and not performed in Finland., Conclusions: The work of RECs in the four countries varied notably. Various deficiencies in the system require action, for which international comparison can provide useful insights.