Challenges and lessons learned for institutional review board procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic

被引:12
作者
Ford, Daniel E. [1 ]
Johnson, Ann [2 ]
Nichols, Jason J. [3 ]
Rothwell, Erin [4 ]
Dubinett, Steve [5 ]
Naeim, Arash [5 ]
机构
[1] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Inst Clin & Translat Res, Baltimore, MD USA
[2] Univ Utah, Sch Med, IRB Off, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[3] Univ Alabama Birmingham, Sch Optometry, Sch Med, Ctr Clin & Translat Sci,Dept Vis Sci, Birmingham, AL 35294 USA
[4] Univ Utah, Sch Med, Dept Obstet & Gynecol, Salt Lake City, UT 84132 USA
[5] Univ Calif Los Angeles, David Geffen Sch Med, Dept Med, Clin & Translat Sci Inst, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
关键词
Internal review board; COVID-19; informed consent; protocol review; protection of human subjects;
D O I
10.1017/cts.2021.27
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the clinical research landscape in America. The most urgent challenge has been to rapidly review protocols submitted by investigators that were designed to learn more about or intervene in COVID-19. International Review Board (IRB) offices developed plans to rapidly review protocols related to the COVID-19 pandemic. An online survey was conducted with the IRB Directors at Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutions as well as two focus groups. Across the CTSA institutions, 66% reviewed COVID-19 protocols across all their IRB committees, 22% assigned protocols to just one committee, and 10% created a new committee for COVID-19 protocols. Fifty-two percent reported COVID-19 protocols were reviewed much faster, 41% somewhat faster, and 7% at the same speed as other protocols. Three percent reported that the COVID-19 protocols were reviewed with much better quality, 32% reported slightly better quality, and 65% reported the reviews were of the same quality as similar protocols before the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs were able to respond to the emergent demand for reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most of the increased review capacity was due to extra effort by IRB staff and members and not changes that will be easily implemented across all research going forward.
引用
收藏
页数:4
相关论文
共 4 条
  • [1] Desperate Times: Protecting the Public From Research Without Consent or Oversight During Public Health Emergencies
    Beach, Mary Catherine
    Lederman, Howard M.
    Singleton, Megan
    Brower, Roy G.
    Carrese, Joseph
    Ford, Daniel E.
    Hansoti, Bhakti
    Hendrix, Craig W.
    Jorgensen, Ellen Verena
    Moore, Richard D.
    Rocca, Philip
    Zenilman, Jonathan M.
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2020, 173 (11) : 926 - +
  • [2] A risk-benefit framework for human research during the COVID-19 pandemic
    Lumeng, Julie C.
    Chavous, Tabbye M.
    Lok, Anna S.
    Sen, Srijan
    Wigginton, Nicholas S.
    Cunningham, Rebecca M.
    [J]. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 2020, 117 (45) : 27749 - 27753
  • [3] Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study
    Nichols, Ceilidh
    Kunkel, Lynn E.
    Baker, Robin
    Jelstrom, Eve
    Addis, Megan
    Hoffman, Kim A.
    McCarty, Dennis
    Korthuis, P. Todd
    [J]. CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS COMMUNICATIONS, 2019, 14
  • [4] Perez T, 2020, AM J MED SCI, V360, P213, DOI 10.1016/j.amjms.2020.06.011