RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Travel burden often substantially limits the ability of individuals to participate in clinical trials. Wide geographic dispersion of individuals with rare diseases poses an additional key challenge in the conduct of clinical trials for rare diseases. Novel technologies and methods can improve access to research by connecting participants in their homes and local communities to a distant research site. For clinical trials, however, understanding of factors important for transition from traditional multi-center trial models to local participation models is limited. We sought to test a novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design in the context of a trial for Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN3 disease), a very rare pediatric neurodegenerative disorder. METHODS: We created a "hub and spoke" model for implementing a 22-week crossover clinical trial of mycophenolate compared with placebo, with two 8-week study arms. A single central site, the "hub," conducted screening, consent, drug dispensing, and tolerability and efficacy assessments. Each participant identified a clinician to serve as a collaborating "spoke" site to perform local safety monitoring. Study participants traveled to the hub at the beginning and end of each study arm, and to their individual spoke site in the intervening weeks. RESULTS: A total of 18 spoke sites were established for 19 enrolled study participants. One potential participant was unable to identify a collaborating local site and was thus unable to participate. Study start-up required a median 6.7 months (interquartile range = 4.6-9.2 months). Only 33.3% (n = 6 of 18) of spoke site investigators had prior clinical trial experience, thus close collaboration with respect to study startup, training, and oversight was an important requirement. All but one participant completed all study visits; no study visits were missed due to travel requirements. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a step toward local trial participation for patients with rare diseases. Even in the context of close oversight, local participation models may be best suited for studies of compounds with well-understood side-effect profiles, for those with straightforward modes of administration, or for studies requiring extended follow-up periods.
Asunto(s)
Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/organización & administración , Accesibilidad a los Servicios de Salud/organización & administración , Estudios Multicéntricos como Asunto , Estudios Cruzados , Comités de Ética en Investigación/organización & administración , Humanos , Lipofuscinosis Ceroideas Neuronales/terapia , Enfermedades Raras/terapiaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Central institutional review board (IRB) review will be required for National Institutes of Health-funded multisite human subjects research as of January 2018, with similar requirements extending to most US multisite human research in 2020. Nonetheless, little is known regarding the relative efficiency of central versus local IRB review for multicenter studies. We compared the amount of time required for central versus local IRB review and approval for sites in one ongoing multicenter randomized trial. METHODS: The REGAIN Trial (Regional versus General Anesthesia for Promoting Independence after Hip Fracture; clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT02507505) is an ongoing randomized trial comparing standard-care spinal anesthesia to standard-care general anesthesia for patients undergoing hip fracture surgery. After approval of the protocol by the sponsor IRB, each participating US site opted either to submit the protocol for local IRB review or to designate the sponsor IRB as the IRB of record (i.e. central IRB) via an authorization agreement after a limited local review. For each US REGAIN site approved through 18 April 2017, we assessed (1) the time in calendar days from protocol receipt to IRB submission, (2) the time in calendar days from IRB submission to IRB approval, and (3) the total time in calendar days from protocol receipt to IRB approval (i.e. time from protocol receipt to IRB submission plus time from IRB submission to IRB approval). RESULTS: The main study protocol was submitted to the sponsor IRB on 25 May 2015 and approved on 8 July 2015 (44 days). Out of 34 sites, 9 received initial approval from the central (sponsor) IRB; 25 sought initial approval via local review. The median time from protocol receipt to IRB submission was 39 days for sites approved by the central IRB (interquartile range: 35-134) versus 58 days for sites approved via local review (interquartile range: 41-105; p = 0.711). The median time from IRB submission to IRB approval for sites approved by the central IRB was 27 days (interquartile range: 14-32) versus 66 days (interquartile range: 29-138) for sites approved via local review (p = 0.026). The median total time from protocol receipt to IRB approval was 100 days (interquartile range: 71-148) for centrally approved sites versus 132 days (interquartile range: 87-209) for locally approved sites (p = 0.191). CONCLUSION: While central IRB review was associated with a shorter time from IRB submission to IRB approval compared to local IRB review, the total time from protocol receipt to IRB approval varied markedly across sites.
Asunto(s)
Comités de Ética en Investigación/estadística & datos numéricos , Proyectos de Investigación , Protocolos Clínicos , Fracturas de Cadera/cirugía , Humanos , Factores de Tiempo , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board reviewand coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica/ética , Investigación Biomédica/normas , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/ética , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto/normas , Toma de Decisiones/ética , Comités de Ética en Investigación/ética , Proyectos de Investigación/normas , Humanos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of Cooperative Institutional Review Board (Co-IRB) has become subject to continuous discussion. As a result, leading mainly by the Korea Association of Institutional Review Boards (KAIRB), "IRB mutual recognition program (MR-IRB)" was proposed. However operational methods of the program are still controversial. The object of this research is to examine domestically feasible scope and operation methods of MR-IRB by conducting survey. METHODS: 71 survey data was collected from chairman or specialist of each IRB and 29 IRB members of one institution running Central IRB was included. RESULTS: 76.5 % of respondents selected phase 3 multi-national, multi-center clinical Sponsor Initiated Trial as a suitable subject of MR-IRB, but only 50 % supported Investigator initiated trials, and answered early-stage clinical trials such as phase 1 clinical trials or biological agent trials are unsuitable due to relatively insufficient knowledge on risk level. In order to operate MR-IRB, standardized review criteria and agreement of institutions in building mutual trust is essential. Also it was learned from the survey that the most desirable way to adopt MR-IRB is to be initiated by the representing organization such as KAIRB based on mutual trust from institutional agreement. CONCLUSION: MR-IRB was recognized as one of Co-IRB. A suitable subjects of MR-IRB were preferred the phase 3 multi-national, multi-center clinical sponsor initiated trials to all kinds of clinical trials. This study suggests that based on real operation experience from MR-IRB pilot study, further study should be conducted to analyze pros and cons of MR-IRB and identify domestically eligible model to facilitate MR-IRB.