scholarly journals Commentary on Diamond et al.: The efficiency of single institutional review board review in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network–initiated clinical trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 11-13
Author(s):  
Robert Klitzman
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P Diamond ◽  
Esther Eisenberg ◽  
Hao Huang ◽  
Christos Coutifaris ◽  
Richard S Legro ◽  
...  

Background/aims: Timely review of research protocols by institutional review boards leads to more rapid initiation of clinical trials, which is critical to expeditious translation from bench to bedside. This observational study examined the impact of a single institutional review board on time and efforts required to initiate clinical trials by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Cooperative Reproductive Medicine Network. Methods: Collection of data from the same six main clinical sites for three current clinical trials and two past clinical trials, including time from institutional review board submission to approval, pages submitted, consent form length, number of required attachments, other regulatory requirements, order of review at central or local sites, and language in documents at individual participating sites. Results from two past clinical trials were also included. Results: While time required for actual institutional review board submission’s review and initial approval was reduced with use of a single institutional review board for multicenter trials (from a mean of 66.7–24.0 days), total time was increased (to a mean of 111.2 or 123.3 days). In addition to single institutional review board approval, all institutions required local approval of some components (commonly consent language and use of local language), which varied considerably. The single institutional review board relied on local institutions for adding or removing personnel, conflict of interest review, and auditing of activities. Conclusion: A single institutional review board reduced time for initial review and approval of protocols and informed consents, although time for the entire process was increased, as individual institutions retained oversight of components of required regulatory review. In order to best achieve the National Institute of Health’s goals for improved efficiency in initiation and conduct of multisite clinical research, greater coordination with local institutional review boards is key to streamlining and accelerating initiation of multisite clinical research.


Author(s):  
Yao Yuan ◽  
Alison L. Van Dyke ◽  
Valentina I. Petkov ◽  
Sarah Hussey ◽  
Radim Moravec ◽  
...  

Context.— The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registry program is currently evaluating the use of archival, diagnostic, formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded (FFPE) tissue obtained through SEER cancer registries, functioning as honest brokers for deidentified tissue and associated data. To determine the feasibility of this potential program, laboratory policies for sharing tissue for research needed to be assessed. Objective.— To understand the willingness of pathology laboratories to share archival diagnostic tissue for cancer research and related policies. Design.— Seven SEER registries administered a 27-item questionnaire to pathology laboratories within their respective registry catchment areas. Only laboratories that processed diagnostic FFPE specimens and completed the questionnaire were included in the analysis. Results.— Of the 153 responding laboratories, 127 (83%) responded that they process FFPE specimens. Most (n = 88; 69%) were willing to share tissue specimens for research, which was not associated with the number of blocks processed per year by the laboratories. Most laboratories retained the specimens for at least 10 years. Institutional regulatory policies on sharing deidentified tissue varied considerably, ranging from requiring a full Institutional Review Board review to considering such use exempt from Institutional Review Board review, and 43% (55 of 127) of the laboratories did not know their terms for sharing tissue for research. Conclusions.— This project indicated a general willingness of pathology laboratories to participate in research by sharing FFPE tissue. Given the variability of research policies across laboratories, it is critical for each SEER registry to work with laboratories in their catchment area to understand such policies and state legislation regulating tissue retention and guardianship.


JAMA Surgery ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 150 (2) ◽  
pp. 103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel E. Hall ◽  
Barbara H. Hanusa ◽  
Roslyn A. Stone ◽  
Bruce S. Ling ◽  
Robert M. Arnold

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document