Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: A review of the literature

Abstract

Background

To improve the efficiency of conducting multicenter clinical trials, the Food and Drug Administration, the Office of Human Research Protections, and the Department of Health and Human Services have expressed support for using a centralized institutional review board (IRB) process. However, research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to central IRBs.

Purpose

We aimed to review and describe peer-reviewed journal articles on the use of central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States in an effort to inform the policy discussion about central IRBs.

Methods

We used a PubMed search and consulted IRB experts and the bibliographies of other reviews to identify relevant commentaries and empirical studies.

Results

Our search identified 33 articles related to the use of central IRBs for multicenter trials in the United States. Of these, 22 were commentary pieces and 11 were empirical studies.

Limitations

Our review was restricted to journal articles about the use of central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.

Conclusions

There is limited empirical work on the use of central IRBs for multicenter trials in the United States. Most published studies focused on problems in efficiency associated with redundant local reviews of multicenter studies and the potential benefits of a centralized system. Because the absence of studies on the use of central IRBs may be due to their infrequent use, additional work is needed to generate data on the use of central IRBs and to elucidate and address the concerns that research institutions have about deferring ethical review to a central IRB.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Wagner

Murray

Goldberg

Adler

Abrams

. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute central institutional review board. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 662–66.

US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Using a centralized IRB review process in multicenter clinical trials, March 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm127004.htm (accessed 17 August 2012).

Menikoff

. OHRP correspondence, 30 April 2010. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/Correspondence/mcdeavitt20100430letter.html (accessed 6 August 2012).

Department of Health and Human Services. Human subjects research protections: Enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Fed Regist 2011; 76: 44512–31.

The Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection. Presentation Materials October 10, 2012. Revised by SACHRP, 10 October 2012. SACHRP recommendations on consideration of local context with respect to increasing use of single IRB review. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/mtgings/2012%20Oct%20Mtg/revisedlocalconstext.pdf (accessed 11 January 2012).

Emanuel

Wood

Fleischman

. Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med 2004; 141: 282–91.

Flynn

Hahn

Kramer

. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States. PLoS One 2013; 8(1): e54999.

Greene

Geiger

. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve institutional review board approval. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59: 784–90.

Abbott

Grady

. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2011; 6: 3–20.

10.

Helfand

Mongiu

Roehrborn

. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. J Urol 2009; 181: 2674–79.

11.

Ravina

Deuel

Siderowf

Dorsey

. Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: Local costs without local context. Ann Neurol 2010; 67: 258–60.

12.

Jester

Tilden

Whitley

Sullender

. Regulatory challenges: Lessons from recent West Nile virus trials in the United States. Contemp Clin Trials 2006; 27: 254–59.

13.

Silverman

Hull

Sugarman

. Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 235–41.

14.

Stark

Tyson

Hibberd

. Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. J Perinatol 2010; 30: 163–69.

15.

Stair

Reed

Radeos

Koski

Camargo

. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2001; 8: 636–41.

16.

Burman

Breese

Weis

. The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24: 245–55.

17.

Sobolski

Flores

Emanuel

. Institutional review board review of multicenter studies. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 759.

18.

Who watches the watchmen? Nature 2011; 476: 125. Available at: https://www-nature-com.web.bisu.edu.cn/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/476125a.html

19.

Loh

Meyer

. Medical schools’ attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of central institutional review boards. Acad Med 2004; 79: 644–51.

20.

Klitzman

. How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 13.

21.

Rosé

. Local vs central institutional review boards for multicenter studies. JAMA 2003; 290: 2126.

22.

Christian

Goldberg

Killen

. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1405–08.

23.

Grady

. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA 2010; 304(10): 1122–23.

24.

Taylor

. Moving beyond compliance: Measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB 2007; 29(5): 9–14.

25.

Coleman

Bouesseau

. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics 2008; 9: 6.

26.

US Department of Health and Human Services. Limited competition: Revision applications to advance evidence-based research related to protections for human subjects (U54). Available at: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAS-12-169.html (accessed 17 August 2012).

27.

US Department of Veterans Affairs. VA Central IRB. Available at: http://www.research.va.gov/vacentralirb/#.UPBoMJjc8ng (accessed 11 January 2012).

28.

McNeil

. Central IRBs: Why are some institutions reluctant to sign on? J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97 (13): 953–55.

29.

Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R). Two roads diverged in a yellow wood: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Central IRB (CIRB) considers a model change. Presented at: Advancing Ethical Research Conference, National Harbor, MD, 3 December 2011.

30.

The Lancet Neurology. NeuroNEXT: Accelerating drug development in neurology. Lancet Neurol 2012; 11: 119.

31.

The Academy of Medical Sciences. A new pathway for the regulation and governance of research, January 2011. Available at: http://www.acmedsci.ac.uk/p99.html (accessed 11 January 2013).