Implementation of single IRB review for multisite human subjects research: Persistent challenges and possible solutions.

Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Protecting the Vulnerable and Including the Under-Represented: IRB Practices and Attitudes.

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims-protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented-can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups.

When Is a Change Significant? The Update Problem of Apps in Medical and Behavioral Research.

Digital applications (apps) are commonly used across the research ecosystem. While apps are frequently updated in the course of clinical and behavioral research, there is limited guidance as to when an app update should trigger action related to human research participant protections and who should be responsible for monitoring and reviewing these updates. We term this the "update problem" and argue that, while it is the principal investigator's duty to track all relevant updates, the level of involvement and re-review by the institutional review board (IRB) of an approved research protocol should vary depending on whether the update may be classified as minor, not minor, or significant. Minor updates require at most annual notification of the IRB, updates that are not minor require prompt notification of the IRB, and significant updates may require full board re-review or another response. We also suggest how these policies might be implemented.

The SMART IRB platform: A national resource for IRB review for multisite studies.

Single institutional review board (IRB) review of multisite research increased in frequency over a decade ago with a proliferation of master IRB reliance agreements supporting statewide and regional consortia and disease- and population-specific networks. Although successful, the increasing number of agreements presented significant challenges and illuminated potential benefits of a single, nationwide agreement. Anticipated changes in federal regulations highlighted the need to systematize and simplify IRB reliance. To address these challenges, the NIH National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences funded a project to establish a national IRB reliance network that would support national adoption of single IRB (sIRB) review. The Streamlined, Multisite, Accelerated Resources for Trials (SMART) IRB Platform launched in July 2016 to facilitate dissemination, adoption, and implementation of a collaboratively developed master IRB reliance agreement and supportive tools and resources. More than 580 institutions have joined SMART IRB's Master Common Reciprocal Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreement and begun using the SMART IRB platform to support sIRB arrangements. Here, we describe the tenets of the agreement and operational benefits and challenges of its use. SMART IRB's early success affirms the utility of collaborative, flexible, and centralized approaches to supporting sIRB review while highlighting the need for further national harmonization.

Development of a plain-language library of educational resources for research participants.

There is a paucity of educational resources for potential clinical trial participants, particularly resources in plain language, attentive to health literacy principles and translated into native languages. The New England Research Subject Advocacy Group was formed to explore common issues, interests, and concerns related to the experience of participation in clinical research and research participant safety. Specifically, the group sought to increase community awareness and trust through the development and distribution of publicly accessible informational resources. In support of these aims, the group developed a robust library of high-quality, plain-language educational materials covering topics in health research, research participation, and common research procedures, and translated the majority of the materials into an additional 15 languages. These resources have been downloaded over 130,000 times. After English, the most common languages downloaded are Vietnamese, Spanish, and Korean.

CTSA Consortium Consensus Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Working Group Report on the SRC Processes.

Human research projects must have a scientifically valid study design, analytic plan, and be operationally feasible in order to be successfully completed and thus to have translational impact. To ensure this, institutions that conduct clinical research should have a scientific review process prior to submission to the Institutional Review Committee (IRB). This paper reports the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium Scientific Review Committee (SRC) Consensus Working Group's proposed framework for a SRC process. Recommendations are provided for institutional support and roles of CTSAs, multisite research, criteria for selection of protocols that should be reviewed, roles of committee members, application process, and committee process. Additionally, to support the SCR process effectively, and to ensure efficiency, the Working Group recommends information technology infrastructures and evaluation metrics to determine outcomes are provided.