1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Criteria For Approval 45 CFR CFR Minimized risks Reasonable risk/benefit ratio Equitable subject selection Informed consent process Informed.
Susan Sonne, PharmD, BCPP Chair, MUSC IRB II
Ethical Considerations when Developing Human Research Protocols A discipline “born in scandal and reared in protectionism” Carol Levine, 1988.
Ethical issues in clinical research Bernard Lo, M.D. August 24,
UH employees and students who conduct research involving human subjects are required to obtain approval from the Committee on Human Studies (CHS). John.
Conflict and Consent: Managing Disclosure in Human Subjects Research University of Miami Human Subjects Research Office Conflict of Interest Symposium.
Subject Selection and Recruitment David Wendler Department of Clinical Bioethics NIH, USA.
Use of Children as Research Subjects What information should be provided for an FP7 ethical review?
1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. August 9 and 12, 2010.
1 Risks and Benefits of Home-Use HIV Test Kits Richard Forshee, Ph.D. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Office.
CUMC IRB Investigator Meeting Special IND/IDE Considerations: Emergency Use of Investigational Product Compassionate Use & Emergency Research July 21,
CUMC IRB Investigator Meeting November 9, 2004 Research Use of Stored Data and Tissues.
8 Criteria for IRB Approval of Research 45 CFR (a)
Institutional Review Boards (IRB) for Indian Health Research.
Human Subject Protection Judith Birk IRB Health / Behavioral Sciences.
Is this Research? Exempt? Expedited?
Human Subject Research Ethics
IRB Discussion Consent and Assent Issues in Vulnerable Populations December
Adverse Events, Unanticipated Problems, Protocol Deviations & other Safety Information Which Form 4 to Use?
1 Wheaton College INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
Idara C.E.. Three ethical principles guides research with human participants. principle of Autonomy 1. The principle of Autonomy requires investigators.
The Good, the Bad, and the Obscure: Assessing Risks and Benefits Rebecca M. Thomas IRB Program Manager Research Integrity Office.
Regulatory criteria for approval Bob Craig, July 2007.
1 Ethics of Working with Human Subjects (BIOL/CHEM 397 ) Header image designed by Michelle Jordan, UMBC Creative Services, 2009.
Placebo-Controls in Short-Term Clinical Trials of Hypertension Sana Al-Khatib, MD, MHS Assistant Professor of Medicine Division of Cardiology Duke University.
Institutional Review Board for Human Subject Research: Does Your Research Need One? Merle Rosenzweig Michael Unsworth.
RESPONSIBLE CONDUCT IN HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH MARGARITA M. CARDONA DIRECTOR OF SPONSORED RESEARCH Institutional Review Board.
1 Protection of Vulnerable Subjects in Research Melody Lin, Ph.D. December 2012.
Privacy and Confidentiality. Definitions n Privacy - having control over the extent, timing, and circumstances of sharing oneself (physically, behaviorally,
IRB BASICS: Issues in Ethics and Human Subject Protections Prepared by Ed Merrill Department of Psychology November 12, 2009.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) What is our Purpose and Role for Ethical Research.
Ethics Ethics Applied to Research. Ethics in Nursing Research Scientific Misconduct – a fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or other practice that.
Path Risks, Benefits and Inducements Finding the Balance.
Human Subject Protection Research Imperatives. History World War II - Nuremberg Tuskegee Study Belmont Report Modern Problems - Inadequacy of “Good Intentions”
The Ethics of Research on Human Subjects. Research Activity on Human Subjects: Any systematic attempt to gain generalizable knowledge about humans A systematic.
ETHICS OF NEONATAL RESEARCH John L. Sever, MD, PhD. Children’s National Medical Center George Washington University Medical Center Washington, DC.
NAVIGATING THE IRB PROCESS University Institutional Review Board California State University, Stanislaus.
Case Studies: Puzzles in Human Research Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst, Program for Research Integrity Development and Education.
APPROVAL CRITERIA AN IRB INFOSHORT MAY CFR CRITERIA FOR IRB APPROVAL OF RESEARCH In order for an IRB to approve a research study, all.
Regulatory requirements: children, assent, and consent waivers and waiver of documentation Bob Craig, 2007.
5-6-1 Unit 6: Ethical considerations After completing this unit, you should be able to: Understand the basic ethical principles of working with.
Idara C.E.. Three ethical principles guides research with human participants. principle of Autonomy 1. The principle of Autonomy requires investigators.
ETHICAL ISSUES AND INFORMED CONSENT Juan M. Lozano, MD, MSc Department of Paediatrics and Clinical Epidemiology Unit School of Medicine, Javeriana University.
Chapter 5 Ethical Concerns in Research. Historical Perspective on Ethics Nazi Experimentation in WWII –“medical experiments” –Nuremberg War Crime Trials.
Pediatric Research Ethics and the Research Subject Advocate Tomas Jose Silber, MD, MASS RSA and Director, Office of Ethics, CNMC Professor of Pediatrics,
0 Ethics Lecture Research. ACADEMY OF OPHTHALMOLOGY Disclosures  The speaker has no financial interest in the subject matter of this.
Chapter 2: Ethical Issues in Program Evaluation. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) Federal mandate for IRBs –Concern during 1970s about unethical research.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subject Protections: Working with the IRB Erin A McClure, PhD Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.
Protecting Human Subjects Overview of the Issues Applications to Educational Research The IRB Process.
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY IRB ADAPTED FROM DHHS GUIDANCE ON UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS Unanticipated Problems.
The IRB and Human Subjects Research Protection Eric Felde, CIP Research Compliance Consultant Office of Research Compliance Indiana University.
The Protection of Human Participants in Research A Brief Overview.
Requirements to run clinical trials: Research fee calculation, patient consent Kyoung Hwa Ha.
Susan Sonne, PharmD, BCPP Chair, MUSC IRB II
Back to Basics – Approval Criteria
Research on Populations Prone to Being Vulnerable
The Protection of Human Participants in Research
Ethical Principles of Research
Introduction to the Institutional Review Board
Lana Gevorkyan Corporate Director Human Research Protection Program
Ethics in Research.
Greg Nezat CRNA, PhD CDR/NC/USN Chairman, IRB II
CUNY Human Research Protection Program (HRPP)
Ethics Review Morals: Rules that define what is right and wrong Ethics: process of examining moral standards and looking at how we should interpret and.
IRB Educational Session - IRB Regulations on Expedited Review
Ethical Considerations for Pediatric Clinical Investigations
Human Participants Research
Research, Experimentation, & Clinical Trials
Ethical Theories and Principles in Clinical and Research
Presentation transcript:

1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008

2  Why do we have IRBs?  Why do we have federal research regulations?

3 Nazi “experiments” 1. Unacceptable risk 2. No consent 3. Use of vulnerable subjects

4 Tuskegee study 1932Study started 1936Journal told that local MDs asked not to treat subjects 1940Subjects not treated in military 1947USPHS Rapid Treatment Centers

5 Tuskegee study 1968Whistleblower Peter Buxtun 1969CDC local chapters of AMA and NMA reaffirm support, 1970News coverage

6 Tuskegee study 1974DHEW issues regulations on funded research 1974 Tuskegee Benefit Program

7 Fundamental tension in research  Primary goal is generalizable knowledge, benefit to society  Participants face risks but benefit to others

8 Ethical violations in Tuskegee 1. Inappropriate risk / benefit ratio 2. Lack of informed and voluntary consent 3. Targeting of vulnerable population

9 Regulations respond to Tuskegee 1. Beneficence  Risks must be acceptable  Risks must be minimized 2. Respect for persons  Informed and voluntary consent

10 Regulations respond to Tuskegee 3. Justice  Equitable selection of subjects  Protections for vulnerable subjects

11 Federal requirements for research  Review by IRB  Independent of investigators  Risks / benefits acceptable  Risks must be minimized Must understand science  Include psychosocial risks Confidentiality

12 Federal requirements for research  Informed and voluntary consent  Concerns about undue inducement if payment  Exceptions to consent Not capable of consent (children, adults who lack decision-making capacity) Impracticable to obtain consent

13 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  Prospective cohort study of incidence of hepatitis C and risk factors  Blood draws  Questionnaires

14 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  Target population?  Injection drug users  Commercial sex workers  Vulnerable populations at higher risk need special protection

15 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  Medical risks minimal  Physical risks of questionnaires tiny  Psychosocial risks considerable  Highly sensitive data Alcohol and substance abuse Sexual behaviors, STDs, HIV Illegal activities: sex for $, IDU (Psychiatric illness)

16 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  If confidentiality breached  Legal risk: illegal activities  Social harm: stigma, disruption of relationships  Economic harm: loss of employment

17 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  How to minimize risks?  Staff training  Use coded or de-identified data  Data security

18 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  How to minimize risks?  Data security Do not store identified data on laptops, removable devices Encryption  Certificate of confidentiality  Inform participants of risk during consent process

19 Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C  Cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality  Reporting of communicable diseases  Audits by funders

20

21 Study 2: cholesterol-lowering drug  Phase II RCT to study whether new drug to lower LDL prevents progression of coronary disease  Compare to standard statin  Known to lower LDL more than statins

22 Study 2: cholesterol-lowering drug  Primary endpoint is progression of CAD on follow-up angiography compared to baseline angiography  Secondary endpoints  Combined cardiac death + MI  Ischemia on exercise nuclear imaging

23 Study 2: context  Drug already approved by FDA on basis of LDL reduction  Is advantage in vascular progression a surrogate endpoint?  More power to detect surrogate endpoint than clinical endpoint

24 Question for audience  Would repeat angiography be indicated in clinical care after starting patient on lipid-lowering drug?

25 Question for audience  Conceivable that detect L main stenosis?

26 Question for audience  Do you regard benefit / risk balance as acceptable?

27 Study 2: What are benefits of study?  Direct benefits intended by study design  Drug to lower LDL, monitoring of LDL  ? Angiography

28 Study 2: What are benefits of study?  Collateral benefits of being in study, independent of research intervention  Education about CAD risk  Attention of staff  Payment for participation May not be considered by IRB as benefit

29 Study 2: What are risks of study?  Procedures that offer prospect direct benefit  Adverse effects of study drug  Procedures to answer research question  Risks of angiography

30 Questions regarding Study 2  May invasive procedures not indicated in clinical care be allowed in research?  How can risks and benefits of complex study be combined into overall assessment?

31 For interventions that offer prospect of direct benefit  Greater level of risk acceptable than for interventions solely for research  Balance of benefits / burdens should be comparable to standard care

32 For interventions that offer no prospect of direct benefit  May not justify by benefits of study drug  Study drug might reduce cardiac events May not justify by collateral benefits

33 For interventions that offer no prospect of direct benefit  Risks must be reasonable compared to potential knowledge gained  Risks must be minimized consistent with valid research design

34 In Study 2  Are risks minimized?  Noninvasive means to assess progression of vascular occlusion CT angiography Doppler studies of carotid arteries

35 In Study 2  What is potential knowledge gained?  Is greater reduction in LDL clinically meaningful? What will this study add to what is already known?

36 Question for audience  Do you regard benefit / risk balance as acceptable?

37 Outcome of Study 2  Endpoint was progression of carotid disease evaluated by Doppler  Study was negative study  Was short-term benefit realistic?

38

39 Looking ahead  When is IRB review not necessary?  Not research  Certain survey, interview research  Certain research with existing data and biological specimens

40 Looking ahead  When may IRB review be expedited?  Minimal risk in technical sense  On list approved by DHHS Venipuncture Noninvasive Not XRs Minor changes Continuing review

41 Practical IRB tips on 8/14  Bring your questions!