Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance

Q2 Social Sciences
Amy Corneli, Carrie B. Dombeck, Kevin McKenna, Sara B. Calvert
{"title":"Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance","authors":"Amy Corneli,&nbsp;Carrie B. Dombeck,&nbsp;Kevin McKenna,&nbsp;Sara B. Calvert","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500092","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The revised Common Rule requires using a single institutional review board (sIRB) for U.S.-based, multisite, nonexempt, federally conducted or supported research with human participants. The 21st Century Cures Act directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to harmonize differences between HHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations governing research with humans. Anticipating that the FDA may update its 2006 centralized IRB guidance, we conducted interviews with 34 stakeholders engaged in FDA-regulated clinical research to identify benefits and challenges of using sIRBs and to gather recommendations for revising the FDA's guidance. The main benefits were consistency and standardization, speed and efficiency, and streamlining and simplification. The main challenges were uncertainty at local institutions, including addressing local context; decreased timeliness of the research review process; variable processes; and insufficient communication. Several recommendations for FDA guidance focused on the local context and communication plans. Findings suggest that the sIRB review process may be gaining efficiency although challenges remain.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"43 3","pages":"26-36"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/eahr.500092","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500092","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The revised Common Rule requires using a single institutional review board (sIRB) for U.S.-based, multisite, nonexempt, federally conducted or supported research with human participants. The 21st Century Cures Act directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to harmonize differences between HHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations governing research with humans. Anticipating that the FDA may update its 2006 centralized IRB guidance, we conducted interviews with 34 stakeholders engaged in FDA-regulated clinical research to identify benefits and challenges of using sIRBs and to gather recommendations for revising the FDA's guidance. The main benefits were consistency and standardization, speed and efficiency, and streamlining and simplification. The main challenges were uncertainty at local institutions, including addressing local context; decreased timeliness of the research review process; variable processes; and insufficient communication. Several recommendations for FDA guidance focused on the local context and communication plans. Findings suggest that the sIRB review process may be gaining efficiency although challenges remain.

利益相关者在单一IRB审查过程中的经验和食品药品监督管理局指导建议。
修订后的《共同规则》要求使用一个单一的机构审查委员会(sIRB)进行基于美国的、多站点的、非排他性的、由联邦政府进行或支持的有人类参与者的研究。《21世纪治愈法》指示卫生与公众服务部(HHS)协调HHS与美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)管理人类研究法规之间的差异。由于预计美国食品药品监督管理局可能会更新其2006年的集中IRB指南,我们采访了34名参与美国食品药品管理局监管临床研究的利益相关者,以确定使用sIRB的益处和挑战,并收集修订美国食品药品管理局指南的建议。主要好处是一致性和标准化、速度和效率以及精简和简化。主要挑战是地方机构的不确定性,包括处理当地情况;研究审查过程的及时性降低;可变过程;以及沟通不足。美国食品药品监督管理局的一些指导建议侧重于当地环境和沟通计划。研究结果表明,尽管仍然存在挑战,但sIRB审查过程可能正在提高效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信