Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.

Research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials Transf...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kathryn E Flynn, Cynthia L Hahn, Judith M Kramer, Devon K Check, Carrie B Dombeck, Soo Bang, Jane Perlmutter, Felix A Khin-Maung-Gyi, Kevin P Weinfurt
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3559741?pdf=render
_version_ 1818460291656056832
author Kathryn E Flynn
Cynthia L Hahn
Judith M Kramer
Devon K Check
Carrie B Dombeck
Soo Bang
Jane Perlmutter
Felix A Khin-Maung-Gyi
Kevin P Weinfurt
author_facet Kathryn E Flynn
Cynthia L Hahn
Judith M Kramer
Devon K Check
Carrie B Dombeck
Soo Bang
Jane Perlmutter
Felix A Khin-Maung-Gyi
Kevin P Weinfurt
author_sort Kathryn E Flynn
collection DOAJ
description Research institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) supported this project to solicit current perceptions of barriers to the use of central IRBs and to formulate potential solutions. We held discussions with IRB experts, interviewed representatives of research institutions, and held an expert meeting with diverse stakeholder groups and thought leaders. We found that many perceived barriers relate to conflating responsibilities of the institution with the ethical review responsibilities of the IRB. We identified the need for concrete tools to help research institutions separate institutional responsibilities from ethical responsibilities required of the IRB. One such tool is a document we created that delineates these responsibilities and how they might be assigned to each entity, or, in some cases, both entities. This tool and project recommendations will be broadly disseminated to facilitate the use of central IRBs in multicenter trials. The ultimate goal is to increase the nation's capacity to efficiently conduct the large number of high-quality trials.
first_indexed 2024-12-14T23:27:55Z
format Article
id doaj.art-49f9320bae1b4a1a918c3fee016c65d7
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1932-6203
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-14T23:27:55Z
publishDate 2013-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj.art-49f9320bae1b4a1a918c3fee016c65d72022-12-21T22:43:46ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0181e5499910.1371/journal.pone.0054999Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.Kathryn E FlynnCynthia L HahnJudith M KramerDevon K CheckCarrie B DombeckSoo BangJane PerlmutterFelix A Khin-Maung-GyiKevin P WeinfurtResearch institutions differ in their willingness to defer to a single, central institutional review board (IRB) for multicenter clinical trials, despite statements from the FDA, OHRP, and NIH in support of using central IRBs to improve the efficiency of conducting trials. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) supported this project to solicit current perceptions of barriers to the use of central IRBs and to formulate potential solutions. We held discussions with IRB experts, interviewed representatives of research institutions, and held an expert meeting with diverse stakeholder groups and thought leaders. We found that many perceived barriers relate to conflating responsibilities of the institution with the ethical review responsibilities of the IRB. We identified the need for concrete tools to help research institutions separate institutional responsibilities from ethical responsibilities required of the IRB. One such tool is a document we created that delineates these responsibilities and how they might be assigned to each entity, or, in some cases, both entities. This tool and project recommendations will be broadly disseminated to facilitate the use of central IRBs in multicenter trials. The ultimate goal is to increase the nation's capacity to efficiently conduct the large number of high-quality trials.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3559741?pdf=render
spellingShingle Kathryn E Flynn
Cynthia L Hahn
Judith M Kramer
Devon K Check
Carrie B Dombeck
Soo Bang
Jane Perlmutter
Felix A Khin-Maung-Gyi
Kevin P Weinfurt
Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.
PLoS ONE
title Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.
title_full Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.
title_fullStr Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.
title_full_unstemmed Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.
title_short Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States.
title_sort using central irbs for multicenter clinical trials in the united states
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3559741?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT kathryneflynn usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT cynthialhahn usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT judithmkramer usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT devonkcheck usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT carriebdombeck usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT soobang usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT janeperlmutter usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT felixakhinmaunggyi usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates
AT kevinpweinfurt usingcentralirbsformulticenterclinicaltrialsintheunitedstates