Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Clinical Trial

Multicenter clinical trials require approval by multiple local institutional review boards (IRBs). The Multicenter Airway Research Collaboration mailed a clinical trial protocol to its U.S. investigators and 44 IRBs ultimately reviewed it. OBJECTIVE: To describe IRB responses to one standard protocol and thereby gain insight into the advantages and disadvantages of local IRB review. METHODS: Two surveys were mailed to participants, with telephone follow-up of nonrespondents. Survey 1 was mailed to 82 investigators across North AMERICA: Survey 2 was mailed to investigators from 44 medical centers in 17 U.S. states. Survey 1 asked about each investigator's local IRB (e.g., frequency of meetings, membership), whereas survey 2 asked about IRB queries and concerns related to the submitted clinical trial. RESULTS: Both surveys had 100% response rate. Investigators submitted applications a median of 58 days (interquartile range [IQR], 40--83) after receipt of the protocol, and IRB approval took an additional 38 days (IQR, 26--62). Although eight applications were approved with little or no changes, IRBs requested an average of 3.5 changes per site. Changes involved study logistics and supervision for 45%, the research process for 43%, and the consent form for 91%. Despite these numerous requests, all eventually approved the basic protocol, including inclusion criteria, intervention, and data collection. CONCLUSIONS: The IRBs showed extreme variability in their initial responses to a standard protocol, but ultimately all gave approval. Almost all IRBs changed the consent form. A national, multicenter IRB process might streamline ethical review and warrants further consideration.     

Conducting research using the emergency exception from informed consent: the Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial experience

BACKGROUND: The Public Access Defibrillation (PAD) Trial, a prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing two prehospital resuscitation strategies, was conducted under the regulations for exception from informed consent (21CFR50.24) in 24 communities in North America. These regulations place additional requirements for human subject protection on investigators and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), including conducting community consultation (CC) and public disclosure (PD). OBJECTIVE: To describe the IRB approval process at study sites and the number and types of community consultation and public disclosure activities conducted. METHODS: The 24 study sites in the United States and Canada submitted IRB applications, CC and PD plans, and a structured report on IRB process and investigator perceptions to the Clinical Trial Center at the University of Washington. RESULTS: The primary IRBs for all 24 trial sites and a total of 101 IRBs approved the study. The median interval from submission to approval was 108 days (IQR 43-196), and the mean number of revisions was two (range 0-7). Investigators conducted nearly 12,000 activities to achieve CC and PD; activities varied greatly from site to site in both type and quantity. CONCLUSION: The length of time to obtain IRB approval and the extent of community consultation and public disclosure varied greatly among trial sites in meeting the current regulations for conducting emergency research with exception from informed consent. This suggests that more specific guidance may be useful and that determination of effective strategies for community consultation and public disclosure is needed.     

Informed Consent for Medical Research: Common Discrepancies and Readability

Objective: To identify common discrepancies and average reading grade levels for informed consent forms (ICFs) us submitted to institutional review boards (IRBs) by medical researchers.
Methods: A retrospective evaluation of ICFs as submitted to IRBs of 3 university-affiliated hospitals during a I-year period. ICF content was evaluated using a checklist of 23 requirements specified in the federal regulations governing human research. Documents then were computer-analyzed to determine the readability scores using 2 common indexes of comprehension. A discrepancy was defined as any instance in which an ICF did not address an applicable requirement in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Results: Eighty-two ICFs representing 16 medical specialties were evaluated; 8 (10%) were from emergency medicine. Eighteen ICFs (22%) were conspicuously incomplete, lacking 29 federal requirements. The mean number of discrepancies was 4.7 (95% CI, 3.9–5.5) Common omissions included: a statement about who is doing the research, number of subjects in the study, circumstances when a subject's participation may be terminated, disclosure of alternative procedures, and notice to subjects regarding new findings. The mean Flesch grade level required to read all ICFs was 13.8 (95% CI, 13.5–14.2), implying that the majority of the U.S. adult population would be unable to comprehend these forms.
Conclusion: Designing a consent form to meet all of the federal requirements while maintaining a level of reading comprehension suitable for the general population is a difficult task for investigators.     

A study of warning letters issued to institutional review boards by the United States Food and Drug Administration

PURPOSE: This study explores the ethical issues contained in warning letters (WLs) issued to institutional review boards (IRBs) by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: The online FDA Warning Letter Index was reviewed for letters issued to IRBs in the United States under the violation categories "Institutional Review Board" and "IRB" for the period January 1997 through July 2004. The resultant letters were evaluated for violations in 4 regulatory themes: having and following written procedures for research review; documentation of research review; IRB membership and conflict of interest; and informed consent. RESULTS: Fifty-two (52) FDA WLs were issued to IRBs during this period. Hospital/medical centre IRBs received the most letters (n = 34), followed by university IRBs (n = 9) and private IRBs (n = 9). The most common regulatory violations were failure to have and follow adequate written procedures about how the review of research is conducted (50 WLs); failure to prepare and maintain adequate documentation of IRB activities (47 WLs); and failure to provide adequate continuing review of approved studies (36 WLs). Nineteen WLs were issued for consent form issues. CONCLUSIONS: Warning letters are informative with regard to clinical research regulations and research subject protection. The content of these letters consistently indicates weaknesses in review and documentation activities of audited IRBs, potentially signalling similar issues among IRBs across the United States. Our findings, in a setting of overburdened IRBs who, in general, passively monitor studies, raise concerns about study oversight and optimal protection of research subjects.     

Human Subjects Protection and Federal Regulations of Clinical Trials

ObjectivesTo explore the federal regulations governing clinical trials and human subject protection, the importance of research participant's informed consent, and the role the oncology clinical research nurse has within the clinical trial setting.Data SourcesPeer-reviewed journal articles, internet, book chapters, white papers.ConclusionFederal regulations mandate the conduct of a clinical research trial, human research participant protection, and the informed consent process.Implications for Nursing PracticeThe oncology nurse supports the autonomy and safe conduct of the human research participant during a clinical research trial and provides education and support through the informed consent process.     

Unresolved legal and ethical issues in research of adults with severe traumatic brain injury: analysis of an ongoing protocol

This paper synthesizes federal and state laws and bioethics literature with observations from an ongoing research protocol to identify, define, and clarify the unresolved legal and ethical issues regarding research involving adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Solutions that protect rights and minimize unnecessary impediments to valuable clinical and scientific inquiry are also illustrated using the same protocol. Research was performed at intensive care, inpatient rehabilitation, and long-term acute chronic hospitals. Our research protocol identified five areas of law impacting adults with TBI: advanced directives, healthcare surrogacy acts, probate acts, power of attorney acts, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The published bioethics literature and responses from local human subject institutional review boards (IRBs) suggest that some of the unresolved ethical issues in research include defining vulnerability, defining informed voluntary consent, determining competency and/or decision-making capacity, using caregivers as subjects, and conducting multisite cooperative studies. Collaboration with IRB members and administrators as well as legal and research ethic scholars developed procedures that protect rights while avoiding unnecessary impediments to research. Investigations of persons with TBI and other cognitive impairments are governed by complicated and inconsistent regulations within the Common Rule and federal and state statues. A need for clear and consistent regulatory guidance regarding multisite studies of TBI persists. In lieu of regulatory guidance, carefully researched solutions for critical peer review are needed to guide future multisite investigations of TBI.     

Are US informed consent requirements driving resuscitation research overseas?

Following a 2-year federally imposed moratorium on acute resuscitation research due to concern regarding the inability of patients in cardiac arrest to provide prospective, informed consent to participate in such research, the United States federal government in 1996 released regulations with provisions for exemption of prospective informed consent in certain types of emergency research. While very few acute resuscitation research studies have been attempted in the United States since that time, such research has continued overseas. We discuss one large multi-center, out-of-hospital trial of a device intended to improve the hemodynamics of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. After pilot implementation overseas, this trial could not be conducted in the United States, largely due to the difficulties and costs involved in implementing the requirements of the 1996 regulations. A recent European Union directive on the conduct of clinical trials may halt European research on patients who are unable to provide prospective, informed consent. The directive contains no provisions for exceptions or waiver of informed consent, and may hinder acute resuscitation research in Europe to an even greater degree than the 1996 regulations have in the United States.     

Implementing the Food and Drug Administration's Final Rule for Waiver of Informed Consent in Certain Emergency Research Circumstances

In 1996, the Food and Drug Administration released its Final Rule for Waiver of Informed Consent in Certain Emergency Research Circumstances (the Final Rule). The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) also released an update of its regulations related to waiver of informed consent in emergency research. These new regulations allow resuscitation research to proceed with a waiver of informed consent under very narrow and specific clinical research circumstances. Waiving informed consent for research participation has profound ethical and scientific implications. However, in unpredictable life-threatening clinical situations for which current therapy is unproven or unsatisfactory, patients usually are unable to consent on their own behalf to participate in clinical trials of potentially beneficial but experimental interventions. Because of the time-dependent nature of most resuscitation interventions, it is usually not feasible to identify and contact the legally authorized representative who can speak on behalf of the patient within the presumed therapeutic window of the intervention under investigation. For such clinical trials to proceed, a waiver of informed consent is usually necessary. Patients who are critically ill or injured and unable to provide meaningful prospective informed consent because of their current life-threatening condition are vulnerable and require additional protections beyond those for research subjects who can speak on their own behalf. The Final Rule and the DHHS-updated regulations incorporate a number of additional patient safeguards that must occur if a clinical trial is to proceed with waiver of informed consent. Specific means of adequately meeting these requirements are not described in the regulations. Although this was intentional on the part of the federal regulators so that individual protocols and research environments would direct the development of these patient safeguards, the lack of specific guidance has led to confusion on the appropriate implementation of the new regulations. This article reviews some of the key concepts of the Final Rule, with suggestions on their purpose and meaning. It also reviews the studies that have been approved to date to proceed with waiver of informed consent, and offers suggestions for the process of implementing the requirements of the Final Rule for research involving patients who are unable to give prospective informed consent.     

Variability in Institutional Review Board Assessment of Minimal-risk Research

OBJECTIVES: To examine variability in responses from institutional review boards (IRBs) to submission of a proposed minimal-risk survey. METHODS: Identical research proposals to obtain information concerning beliefs about the needs of victims of intimate partner violence via surveys were submitted for IRB approval to three institutions in the Baltimore metropolitan area. One institution is an academic center, one is an inner-city hospital affiliated with the academic center, and the third is a suburban community hospital. The study population consisted of emergency department health care providers and individuals in emergency department waiting areas. RESULTS: Inconsistencies emerged among the three IRBs in the review process itself, the need for participant consent, and the need for revision of the consent form and study protocol. One institution approved the proposal in 15 business days after expedited review. The second institution approved the proposal in 12 business days and waived the requirement for informed consent. The third institution approved the research in 77 business days after three revisions. Questions raised included: methodology for selecting participants; appropriateness of surveying individuals in emergency department waiting areas; a request for background literature to assure that the research questions had not already been answered; and concerns about study methodology and sample size justification. CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, there is considerable variability in IRB processes even for minimal-risk studies.     

The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium

There is increasing controversy about the appropriate role of the local institutional review board in the review of multicenter clinical studies. We evaluated the effects of the local review process at 25 study sites on the consent forms from two studies of the Tuberculosis Trials Consortium, a multicenter trials group. Two independent reviewers classified all changes made in the centrally approved consent forms; a third reviewer evaluated those changes if the two initial reviewers disagreed. The median time to initial local approval was 104.5 days (range 31-346). There were no changes in the study protocols as a result of local review. Consent forms became longer and less readable after local review, with a mean increase in grade level of 0.9 (+/-0.9) reading grade levels (p<0.001). A median of 46.5 changes (range 3-160) were made in the centrally approved forms. Most changes (85.2%) involved altering wording without affecting meaning. Errors were commonly introduced (11.2% of changes), and 33 of 50 (66%) locally approved consent forms contained at least one error in protocol presentation or a required consent form element. Local approval of two multicenter clinical trials was time-consuming and resulted in many changes in centrally approved consent forms. These changes frequently decreased readability and introduced errors.     

Confronting the Ethical Challenges to Informed Consent in Emergency Medicine Research

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine believes that protection of human subjects is vital in emergency medicine research and that, whenever feasible, informed consent is at the heart of that protection. At the same time, the emergency setting presents unique barriers to informed consent both because of the time frame in which the research is performed and because patients in the emergency department are a vulnerable population. This report reviews the concept of informed consent, empirical data on patients' cognitive abilities during an emergency, the federal rules allowing exemption from consent under certain circumstances, issues surrounding consent forms, and the new Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations as they relate to research. The authors conclude that, in many circumstances, informed consent is possible if the researcher is diligent and takes time to adequately explain the study to the potential subject. In cases in which it is possible to obtain consent, precautions must be taken to ensure that subjects have decision-making capacity and are offered time to have their questions answered and their needs met. Sometimes resuscitation and other emergency medicine research must be conducted without the ability to obtain consent. In these cases, special protections of subjects under the exception from consent guidelines must be followed. Protection of research subjects is the responsibility of every researcher in emergency medicine.     

The historical, ethical, and legal background of human-subjects research

The current system of human-subject-research oversight and protections has developed over the last 5 decades. The principles of conducting human research were first developed as the Nuremberg code to try Nazi war criminals. The 3 basic elements of the Nuremberg Code (voluntary informed consent, favorable risk/benefit analysis, and right to withdraw without repercussions) became the foundation for subsequent ethical codes and research regulations. In 1964 the World Medical Association released the Declaration of Helsinki, which built on the principles of the Nuremberg Code. Numerous research improprieties between 1950 and 1974 in the United States prompted Congressional deliberations about human-subject-research oversight. Congress's first legislation to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects was the National Research Act of 1974, which created the National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, which issued the Belmont Report. The Belmont Report stated 3 fundamental principles for conducting human-subjects research: respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The Office of Human Research Protections oversees Title 45, Part 46 of the Code for Federal Regulations, which pertains to human-subjects research. That office indirectly oversees human-subjects research through local institutional review boards (IRB). Since their inception, the principles of conducting human research, IRBs, and the Code for Federal Regulations have all advanced substantially. This paper describes the history and current status of human-subjects-research regulations.     

The informed consent process and the use of the exception to informed consent in the clinical trial of diaspirin cross-linked hemoglobin (DCLHb) in severe traumatic hemorrhagic shock. DCLHb Traumatic Hemorrhagic Shock study group.

In the clinical trial of diaspirin cross-linked hemoglobin (DCLHb), optimal therapy required the immediate enrollment of patients with severe, uncompensated, traumatic hemorrhagic shock. When it was not feasible to obtain prospective consent, an exception to informed consent was used according to FDA regulation 21 CFR 50.24. OBJECTIVES: To examine the informed consent process and the use of the consent exception and consent to continue (CTC), and to describe the patients for whom this process was used. METHODS: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blinded efficacy trial of DCLHb as an adjunct to standard therapy in the treatment of severe, traumatic hemorrhagic shock. Patients with unstable vital signs or a critical base deficit were treated, with a primary study endpoint of 28-day mortality. RESULTS: During the 11-month study period, 112 patients were randomized in 18 U.S. trauma centers, and data from 98 of the infused patients were analyzed. Prospective consent was obtained from two patients, three family members, and one legally authorized representative (LAR) (6%). Consent to continue was requested for 89 patients (89%), and full participation was granted for 87 of these patients (98%). Consent to continue was provided by 54 (98%) of the 55 patients approached. The mean number of days for family/LAR CTC was 1.1 +/-3.8 days, and 50% of the time it was obtained on the day of study enrollment. Patient CTC was obtained in an average of 13 +/- 23 days, with a median of four days. Patients treated in this protocol were more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma than the overall trauma patient population treated in these trauma centers (44% vs 21%, p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent in this study of an emergent therapy most often involved the use of the consent exception and consent to continue, the latter of which occurred in a timely manner. Nearly all of those who were approached for CTC approved full participation in the study, suggesting acceptance of the process outlined in the new regulations. Patients treated in a hemorrhagic shock clinical trial may differ from the general trauma patient population.     

Informed Consent for Research: Current Practices in Academic Emergency Medicine

Background:  The emergency department (ED) environment presents unique barriers to the process of obtaining informed consent for research.
Objectives:  The objective was to identify commonalities and differences in informed consent practices for research employed in academic EDs.
Methods:  Between July 1, 2006, and June 30, 2007, an online survey was sent to the research directors of 142 academic emergency medicine (EM) residency training programs identified through the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME).
Results:  Seventy-one (50%) responded. The average number of simultaneous clinical ED-based research projects reported was 7.3 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 5.53 to 9.07). Almost half (49.3%) of respondents reported that EM residents are responsible for obtaining consent. Twenty-nine (41.4%) participating institutions do not require documentation of an individual resident's knowledge of the specific research protocol and consent procedure before he or she is allowed to obtain consent from research subjects.
Conclusions:  It is common practice in academic EDs for clinical investigators to rely on on-duty health care personnel to obtain research informed consent from potential research subjects. This practice raises questions regarding the sufficiency of the information received by research subjects, and further study is needed to determine the compliance of this consent process with federal guidelines.     

Emergency Medical Service Providers' Attitudes andExperiences Regarding Enrolling Patients in Clinical Research Trials

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers' attitudes andexperiences about enrolling patients in clinical research trials utilizing the federal rules for exception from informed consent. We hypothesized that Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) would have varied attitudes about research using an exception from informed consent which could have an impact on the research. Methods andsetting: Since January 2007, the EMS system has been participating in a randomized, multi-center interventional trial in which out-of-hospital providers enroll critically injured trauma patients using exception from informed consent.A voluntary, anonymous, written survey was administered to EMS providers during an in-service. The survey included demographics andLikert-type questions about their experiences with andattitudes towards research in general, andresearch using an exception from informed consent for an out-of-hospital clinical trial. Results: The response rate was 79.3% (844/1067). Most respondents, 93.3%, agreed that “research in EMS care is important.” However, 38.5% also agreed that individual EMTs/paramedics should maintain the personal right of refusal to enroll patients in EMS trials. Fifty-four percent of respondents agreed with the statement that “the right of research subjects to make their own choices is more important than the interests of the general community.” In response to statements about the current study, 11.3% agreed that “the study is unethical because the patient cannot consent” and69.2% responded that they would personally be willing to be enrolled in the study before they were able to give consent if they were seriously injured. Those who had not enrolled a patient into the study (681 respondents) were asked their reasons: 76.8% had not encountered an eligible patient or did not work for an agency that carried the fluid; 4.3% did not have time; 4.1% forgot and1.1% stated that they were opposed to enrolling patients in studies without their consent. Conclusion: The majority of EMS personnel in one community support EMS research andthis specific out-of-hospital clinical trial being conducted under an exception from informed consent. Potential barriers to enrollment were identified. Further study in other systems is warranted to better understand EMS provider perspectives about exception from informed consent research.     

The role of the consent document in informed consent for pediatric leukemia trials

PURPOSE: To examine both the use of the consent document during the informed consent process for pediatric leukemia clinical trials, as well as relationships between the use of the document and parental understanding of essential elements of informed consent. METHODS: Participants included 140 parents of children diagnosed with pediatric leukemia. Informed consent conferences in which randomized clinical trials were discussed were observed, audiotaped, and coded for specific behaviors. Parents were also interviewed within 48 h of their participation in informed consent conferences. RESULTS: Observations revealed that 74% of cases included explanation of consent documents during consent conferences. Parents who reported that they read the consent document were more likely to understand differences between the clinical trial and off study therapy and were more likely to understand the right to withdraw. Reading of the consent document was not associated with understanding of voluntariness. In comparison to racial/ethnic majority parents, racial/ethnic minority parents were less likely to report that they read the consent document, understand voluntariness or the right to withdraw, and were less likely to be able to distinguish between the clinical trial and off study therapy. Low SES was associated with a lower probability of reading the consent document and being able to distinguish between clinical trials and off study therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Attention to the importance of reading the consent document and improving communication during consent conferences is likely to enhance understanding of essential elements of informed consent.     

Implementation of community consultation for waiver of informed consent in emergency research: one Institutional Review Board's experience.

BACKGROUND: This article describes how one Institutional Review Board (IRB) chose to implement the issue of waiver of consent for a research study involving brain trauma victims brought to an emergency department. METHODS: Presentations were conducted in the state of Mississippi among cultural and ethnic groups representative of Mississippi's demographic composition. Individuals from the neurotrauma research team, including neurosurgeons and nurse study coordinators, conducted all of the presentations. One IRB member served as an objective "community liaison" and attended all presentations. This individual administered evaluation forms to attendees that measured their levels of comprehension and acceptance for the use of waiver of consent in the brain trauma study. RESULTS: All of the 137 attendees in 7 community consultation meetings gave their approval for the use of "waiver of consent." Continued community consultations are planned for the duration of the brain trauma study. CONCLUSION: Based on our experience, we conclude that in collaborating with local IRBs, research teams can successfully develop strategies for obtaining "acceptable community consultations" as required by regulatory mandates. We suggest that standardized community consultation guidelines be developed for obtaining waivers of informed consent in emergency research. Such criteria should form the basis for local IRBs to obtain their respective community consultations.     

The Informed Consent Process and the Use of the Exception to Informed Consent in the Clinical Trial of Diaspirin

In the clinical trial of diaspirin crosslinked hemoglobin (DCLHb), optimal therapy required the immediate enrollment of patients with severe, uncompensated, traumatic hemorrhagic shock. When it was not feasible to obtain prospective consent, an exception to informed consent was used according to FDA regulation 21 CFR 50.24. Objectives: To examine the informed consent process and the use of the consent exception and consent to continue (CTC), and to describe the patients for whom this process was used. Methods: This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-blinded efficacy trial of DCLHb as an adjunct to standard therapy in the treatment of severe, traumatic hemorrhagic shock. Patients with unstable vital signs or a critical base deficit were treated, with a primary study endpoint of 28-day mortality. Results: During the 11-month study period, 112 patients were randomized in 18 U.S. trauma centers, and data from 98 of the infused patients were analyzed. Prospective consent was obtained from two patients, three family members, and one legally authorized representative (LAR) (6%). Consent to continue was requested for 89 patients (89%), and full participation was granted for 87 of these patients (98%). Consent to continue was provided by 54 (98%) of the 55 patients approached. The mean number of days for family/LAR CTC was 1.1 ± 3.8 days, and 50% of the time it was obtained on the day of study enrollment. Patient CTC was obtained in an average of 13 ± 23 days, with a median of four days. Patients treated in this protocol were more likely to have sustained penetrating trauma than the overall trauma patient population treated in these trauma centers (44% vs 21%, p = 0.002). Conclusions: Informed consent in this study of an emergent therapy most often involved the use of the consent exception and consent to continue, the latter of which occurred in a timely manner. Nearly all of those who were approached for CTC approved full participation in the study, suggesting acceptance of the process outlined in the new regulations. Patients treated in a hemorrhagic shock clinical trial may differ from the general trauma patient population.