Industry payments to physician journal editors.

BACKGROUND: Open Payments is a United States federal program mandating reporting of medical industry payments to physicians, increasing transparency of physician conflicts of interest (COI). Study objectives were to assess industry payments to physician-editors, and to compare their financial COI rate to all physicians within the specialty. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data, reviewing Open Payments from August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2016. We reviewed general payments ("… not made in connection with a research agreement") and research funding to "top tier" physician-editors of highly-cited medical journals. We compared payments to physician-editors and physicians-by-specialty. In 35 journals, 333 (74.5%) of 447 "top tier" US-based editors met inclusion criteria. Of these, 212 (63.7%) received industry-associated payments in the study period. In an average year, 141 (42.3%) of physician-editors received any direct payments to themselves including general payments and research payments, 66 (19.8%) received direct payments >$5,000 (National Institutes of Health threshold for a Significant Financial Interest) and 51 (15.3%) received >$10,000. Mean annual general payments to physician-editors was $55,157 (median 3,512, standard deviation 561,885, range 10-10,981,153). Median general payments to physician-editors were mostly higher compared to all physicians within their specialty. Mean annual direct research payment to the physician-editor was $14,558 (median 4,000, range 15-174,440). Mean annual indirect research funding to the physician-editor's institution (highly valued by academic leaders such as departmental chairs and deans) was $175,282 (median 49,107, range 0.18-5,000,000). The main study limitation was difficulty identifying physician-editors primarily responsible for making manuscript decisions. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial minority of physician-editors receive payments from industry within any given year, sometimes quite large. Most editors received payment of some kind during the four-year study period. Given the extent of editors' influences on the medical literature, more robust and accessible editor financial COI declarations are recommended.

Resource use, costs, and approval times for planning and preparing a randomized clinical trial before and after the implementation of the new Swiss human research legislation.

BACKGROUND: The preparation of a randomized controlled trial (RCT) requires substantial resources and the administrative processes can be burdensome. To facilitate the conduct of RCTs it is important to better understand cost drivers. In January 2014 the enactment of the new Swiss Legislation on Human Research (LHR) considerably changed the regulatory framework in Switzerland. We assess if the new LHR was associated with change in (i) resource use and costs to prepare an RCT, and (ii) approval times with research ethics committees (RECs) and the regulatory authority Swissmedic. METHODS: We surveyed investigators of RCTs which were approved by RECs in 2012 or in 2016 and asked for RCT preparation costs using a pre-specified item list. Additionally, we collected approval times from RECs and Swissmedic. RESULTS: The response rates of the investigator survey were 8.3% (19/228) for 2012 and 16.5% (47/285) in 2016. The median preparation cost of an RCT was USD 72,400 (interquartile range [IQR]: USD 59,500-87,700; n = 18) in 2012 and USD 72,600 (IQR: USD 42,800-169,600; n = 35) in 2016. For single centre RCTs a median REC approval time of 82 (IQR: 49-107; n = 38) days in 2012 and 92 (IQR: 65-131; n = 63) days in 2016 was observed. The median Swissmedic approval time for any clinical trial was 27 (IQR: 19-51; n = 213) days in 2012 and 49 (IQR: 36-67; n = 179) days in 2016. The total duration for achieving RCT approval from both authorities (REC and Swissmedic) in the parallel submission procedure applied in 2016 could not be assessed. CONCLUSION: Based on limited data the costs to plan and prepare RCTs in Switzerland were approximately USD 72,000 in 2012 and 2016. For effective and valid research on costs and approval times of RCTs a greater willingness to share cost information among investigators and more collaboration between stakeholders with data linkage is necessary.

[Funding for national ethics committees for health research in Member States of the Economic Community of West African States]. / Le financement des Comités nationaux d'éthique de la recherche pour la santé dans les États membres de la communauté économique des États de l'Afrique de l'Ouest.

BACKGROUND: The financing of national research ethics committees for health is a decisive factor in their proper functioning and independence. Little information is available concerning the funding of these committees in West Africa. AIM: To analyze the funding of national research ethic committees for health in the Member States of the Economic Community of West African States. METHODS: A review of the documents from two regional workshops with the participation of the representatives of the national ethics committees of each ECOWAS Member State was carried out. These workshops enabled the collection and validation of data on the status of national ethics committees. These data were used to conduct a descriptive analysis of the funding sources of the committees. RESULTS: Three sources of funding for national ethics committees were identified. The first source was the support of the state or a national structure. The second source was the fee for reviewing the submitted protocols and the last source was the support of external donors. The collection of audit fees and the support of external donors were the main sources of funding for most of the national committees. In only one state, there were no fees for review of submitted protocols and all the ethic committee member were motivated by the government. CONCLUSION: In order to ensure the autonomy and independence of the national committees, state support for the funding of these committees should improve. The establishment of a regional network and its recognition by the Assembly of Ministers of Health of ECOWAS allowed for advocacy by WAHO, which should help achieve better results in the future.

Impact of recent regulatory notifications on an institutional ethics committee.

The Government of India came out with a slew of notifications to streamline clinical research in the beginning of 2013 in response to the Supreme Court's orders and a Parliamentary Standing Committee's report. The notifications greatly influenced the structure, review process, outcomes and administration of ethics committees across India. In this study, we attempted to objectively evaluate the impact of these notifications on our institutional ethics committee's (IEC) structure, review process, outcomes and administration. The results revealed that though the number of regulatory studies reviewed by our IEC remained the same, the number of studies actually approved decreased with an increase in the turnover time. The number of serious adverse events (SAEs) reported also fell, although the number of meetings held to discuss these SAEs increased significantly. The administrative workload rose with increased documentation. Though the annual income of the IEC fell marginally, the expenses shot up. We believe that the notifications definitely had an impact on the structure, review process, outcomes and administration of our IEC, although it remains to be seen whether they had a real impact on the research participants' safety and well-being.

[Role of Institutional Review Boards for multi-centre studies in national health services research - a cross-sectional study of the effort to obtain secondary ethical approvals for the DACAPO study]. / Die Rolle von Ethikkommissionen für die nationale Versorgungsforschung - eine Querschnittsstudie des Aufwandes zur Erlangung von Sekundärvoten anhand der DACAPO-Studie.

BACKGROUND: Health services research (HSR) is of fundamental importance for the continuous improvement of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic measures. The conduct of multi-centre HSR studies requires that ethical approval by Institutional review boards (IRB's) is obtained. We documented the effort, the complexity and the man power necessary to obtain secondary ethical approval for a national HSR in Germany ("Surviving the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome" [DACAPO-study]). METHODS: Having obtained a primary ethical approval by the IRB of Regensburg University, the time, correspondence, necessity for amendments, corrections, or additional costs by 34 IRB's for 64 participating study centers was documented. RESULTS: The complete obtainment was found to be time consuming and associated with a high workload and man power. A time span of seven month was needed to receive votes from all IRB's. The median time span was 25,5 days (25 %/75 % percentile 13 and 42 days, respectively). Requirements in terms of corrections or amendments were inhomogeneous and frequent changes were necessary. There were additional fees for secondary votes of 4328,40 €. Total costs for the study center Regensburg were 21.193,40 € (2,6 % of the grant volume). CONCLUSION: Obtaining all ethical approvals for a multi-centre observational HSR study in Germany is complex and time consuming. Various and inhomogeneous formalities may delay the plan and realization of HSR. A Homogenization and simplification of the procedure of ethics votes should be discussed.

Costs and inconsistencies in US IRB review of low-risk medical education research.

CONTEXT: Advances in communication technologies over the last two decades have transformed the way medical education research is conducted, creating opportunities for multi-institution national and international studies. Although these studies enable researchers to gain broader understandings of educational processes across institutions, they increase the need for multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews to ensure the protection of human subjects. OBJECTIVES: This study describes the process of obtaining multiple IRB approvals of the same protocol for a multi-site, low-risk, medical education research project in the USA. The burden of obtaining those reviews and their consistency are assessed. The associated time and costs, and implications for the research process are detailed. METHODS: Following review by the investigators' parent institution IRB, the project team circulated a uniform protocol for conduct of a low-risk, medical education survey to the IRBs of 89 US medical schools for review. The processes and time required to obtain approvals were recorded to estimate associated research team personnel costs. RESULTS: Approval could not be obtained from five IRBs as a result of insurmountable procedural barriers. A total of 67 IRBs eventually deferred to the parent IRB determination. The remaining IRBs required a variety of additional procedural processes before ultimately agreeing with the original determination. The personnel costs associated with obtaining the 84 approvals amounted to US$121,344. CONCLUSIONS: Considering the value of multi-site designs to address a range of research questions, enhance participant diversity and develop representative findings, solutions must be found to counter inefficiencies of current IRB review processes for low-risk research, such as that usually conducted in medical education. Although we acknowledge that local review is an essential protective measure for research involving identifiable communities that are uniquely susceptible to social or economic harm, this report suggests that proposals to modernise and streamline IRB review processes for low-risk research are timely and relevant.

[Impact of the economic crisis on the activity of a clinical research ethics committee]. / Impacto de la crisis económica en la actividad de un comité ético de investigación clínica.

PURPOSE: Analyze the impact of economic and social crisis in volume and funding of clinical trials (CT) and observational studies (ES) from the activity of an Research Ethics Committee (REC). METHOD: REC memories 2003-2012 were reviewed. Financing of evaluated projects, CT and OS were analyzed classifying them into four groups: 1) promoted by pharmaceutical industry, 2) by scientific societies with industry support, 3) by scientific societies with government support and 4) unfunding.Two periods were compared: pre-crisis (2003-2007) and crisis (2008-2012). RESULTS: During 10 studied years, 744 protocols were evaluated: a 71% of group 1, a 9% of group 2, a 3% of group 3 and a 17% was no funding. Regarding OS, 40%, 5,4%, 8,6% and 46% were the groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Analyzing crisis versus pre-crisis period, statistically significant differences were observed in the decreasing of number of CT phase 2 and 3 and in the rising EO. Comparing crisis related to the pre-crisis period, the Group 4 increased statistically significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Evolution of total number of studies evaluated by REC tends to be maintained and even increased over time. REC maintains its activity and even increased at the expense of financing and unfunded OS.

Objetivos: Analizar el impacto de la crisis económico-social en volumen y financiación de los ensayos clínicos (EC) y estudios observacionales (EO) a partir de la actividad de un Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica (CEIC). Método: Se revisaron las memorias del CEIC desde 2003 hasta 2012. Se analizó la financiación de los EC y los EO clasificándolos en cuatro grupos: 1) promovidos por la industria farmacéutica, 2) por sociedades científicas con soporte de la industria, 3) por sociedades apoyadas por las administraciones públicas y 4) sin financiación. Se compararon dos períodos: precrisis (2003- 2007) y crisis (2008-2012). Resultados: Se evaluaron 744 protocolos: un 71% del grupo 1, un 9% del grupo 2, un 3% del grupo 3 y un 17% carecía de financiación. En cuanto a los EO, un 40%, un 5,4%, un 8,6% y un 46% correspondían a los grupos 1, 2, 3 y 4 respectivamente. Analizando periodo crisis versus precrisis, se observaron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en el número de los EC de fase 2 y fase 3 que disminuyeron y en los EO que aumentaron. En el periodo crisis respecto al precrisis, el Grupo 4 aumentó de manera estadísticamente significativa. Conclusiones: La evolución del número total de estudios evaluados por el CEIC tiende a mantenerse e incluso incrementarse en el tiempo. El CEIC mantiene su actividad e incluso la incrementa, a expensas de EO con y sin financiación.

Is mandatory research ethics reviewing ethical?

Review boards responsible for vetting the ethical conduct of research have been criticised for their costliness, unreliability and inappropriate standards when evaluating some non-medical research, but the basic value of mandatory ethical review has not been questioned. When the standards that review boards use to evaluate research proposals are applied to review board practices, it is clear that review boards do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity, are not just and are not beneficent. The few benefits of mandatory ethical review come at a much greater, but mainly hidden, social cost. It is time that responsibility for the ethical conduct of research is clearly transferred to researchers, except possibly in that small proportion of cases where prospective research participants may be so intrinsically vulnerable that their well-being may need to be overseen.

Getting the justification for research ethics review right.

Dyck and Allen claim that the current model for mandatory ethical review of research involving human participants is unethical once the harms that accrue from the review process are identified. However, the assumptions upon which the authors assert that this model of research ethics governance is justified are false. In this commentary, I aim to correct these assumptions, and provide the right justificatory account of the requirement for research ethics review. This account clarifies why the subsequent arguments that Dyck and Allen make in the paper lack force, and why the 'governance problem' in research ethics that they allude to ought to be explained differently.

How not to argue against mandatory ethics review.

There is considerable controversy about the mandatory ethics review of research. This paper engages with the arguments offered by Murray Dyck and Gary Allen against mandatory review, namely, that this regulation fails to reach the standards that research ethics committees apply to research since it is harmful to the ethics of researchers, has little positive evidence base, leads to significant harms (through delaying valuable research) and distorts the nature of research. As these are commonplace arguments offered by researchers against regulation it is useful to assess their strength and the conclusion that they are taken to support, namely, that we ought to move back to a system of trust in researchers without compulsory regulation. Unfortunately, these arguments are at best weak and to some degree come into conflict in terms of supporting the desired conclusion.

Rolling back the bureaucracies of ethics review.

Dyck and Allen's criticisms of current systems of governance are well founded, at least in some jurisdictions. Their desire to halt the expansion and intensification of research ethics governance is to be applauded. However, their listed categories of research to be exempted from mandatory review may not create a better system.

Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health convened a working group in June 2011 to examine alternative institutional review board (IRB) models. The working group was held in response to proposed changes in the regulations for government-supported research and the proliferation of multicenter clinical trials where multiple individual reviews may be inefficient. Group members included experts in heart, lung, and blood research, research oversight, bioethics, health economics, regulations, and information technology (IT). The group discussed alternative IRB models, ethical concerns, metrics for evaluating IRBs, IT needs, and economic considerations. Participants noted research gaps in IRB best practices and in metrics. The group arrived at recommendations for process changes, such as defining specific IRB performance requirements in funding announcements, requiring funded researchers to use more efficient alternative IRB models, and developing IT systems to facilitate information sharing and collaboration among IRBs. Despite the success of the National Cancer Institute's central IRB (CIRB), the working group, concerned about the creation costs and unknown cost-efficiency of a new CIRB, and about the risk of shifting the burden of dealing with multiple IRBs from sponsors to research institutions, did not recommend the creation of an NHLBI-funded CIRB.

The establishment of ethical committees for medical research.

BACKGROUND: In this article we will describe the process that preceded the establishment of regional committees for medical research ethics in 1985. We will also take a look at the difficult initial period experienced by the committees in the eastern and southern regions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We have examined the material that has been submitted to the National Archives by the Research Council of Norway, the Ministry of Social Affairs and the Ministry of Education and Research, as well as the records of the Regional Committees for Medical and Health Research Ethics South-East. RESULTS: From the early 1970s the Norwegian Medical Association played a key role, for example by launching the proposal for "nationally dispersed committees" in 1977. There was widespread consensus that such committees were desirable, but everybody assumed that they would be funded by somebody else. As a result, the simplest model was chosen. The full set of regional committees was not established until 1987, and even more time passed before they were granted the funding that could ensure appropriate processing of cases. This was only achieved after the adoption of the Research Ethics Act in 2006. INTERPRETATION: Unsolved financial issues were the key reason why this process was so prolonged. The organisational model proposed by the Norwegian Medical Association in 1977 is fairly similar to the one that the Health Research Act brought into place in 2009.

How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research.

BACKGROUND: The Department of Health and Human Services recently called for public comment on human subjects research protections. OBJECTIVE: To assess variability in reviews across institutional review boards (IRBs) for a multisite, minimal-risk trial of financial incentives for evidence-based hypertension care and to quantify the effect of review determinations on site participation, budget, and timeline. DESIGN: A natural experiment occurring from multiple IRBs reviewing the same protocol for a multicenter trial (May 2005 to October 2007). PARTICIPANTS: 25 Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers. MEASUREMENTS: Number of submissions, time to approval, and costs were evaluated; patient complexity, academic affiliation, size, and location (urban or rural) between participating and nonparticipating VA medical centers were compared. RESULTS: Of 25 eligible VA medical centers, 6 did not meet requirements for IRB review and 2 declined to participate. Of 17 applications, 14 were approved. The process required 115 submissions, lasted 27 months, and cost close to $170 000 in staff salaries. One IRB's concern about incentivizing a particular medication recommended by national guidelines prompted a change in our design to broaden our inclusion criteria beyond uncomplicated hypertension. The change required amending the protocol at 14 sites to preserve internal validity. The IRBs that approved the protocol classified it as minimal risk. The 12 sites that ultimately participated in the trial were more likely to be urban and academically affiliated and to care for more complex patients, which limits the external validity of the trial's findings. LIMITATION: Because data came from a single multisite trial in the VA system that uses a 2-stage review process, generalizability is limited. CONCLUSION: Complying with IRB requirements for a minimal-risk study required substantial resources and threatened the study's internal and external validity. The current review of regulatory requirements may address some of these problems.

US Government mandates for clinical and translational research.

This commentary is germane for clinical and translational researchers. Basic scientists may face different obstacles to developing their research careers. Over the past several years, the federal government has seen reductions in funding for extramural research. It seems that under the adverse economic forecasts, things are going to get worse. It might seem logical for the federal government to stretch whatever limited resources exist, by asking the institutions to cost-share greater fractions of the actual research costs, and as an incentive, avoid the imposition of unfunded mandates. But alas, although well intended, there have been expensive requirements imposed by the government, making it difficult for investigators and institutions to adequately fund and conduct their research and for scientific journals to maintain paying subscribers. Five prominent and costly changes, which are the focus of this commentary are (1) HIPAA, (2) http://ClinicalTrials.Gov, (3) Clinical and Translational Science Awards, (4) Upcoming rule changes for IRBs, and (5) PubMedCentral, each of which will be discussed in the ensuing paragraphs.

Revolution or reform in human subjects research oversight.

The contemporary system of prospective oversight of human subjects research has been criticized as inefficient and ineffective. Plausible approaches to research oversight range from no prospective review, to review-and-comment, to the current review-and-approve regime. Articulating this spectrum offers an opportunity to consider systematically the strengths and disadvantages of each.

Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

CONTEXT: Federal regulations mandate independent review and approval by an "institutional review board" (IRB) before studies that involve human research subjects may begin. Although many researchers strongly support the need for IRB review, they also contend that it is burdensome when it imposes costs that do not add to the protections afforded to research participants and that this burden threatens the viability of research. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently announced its intention to reform the regulations governing IRB review. METHODS: We used a search of the PubMed database, supplemented by a bibliographic review, to identify all existing primary data on the costs of IRB review. "Costs" were broadly defined to include both expenditures of time or money and constraints imposed on the scope of the research. Burdensome costs were limited to those that did not contribute to greater protections for the participants. FINDINGS: Evidence from a total of fifty-two studies shows that IRBs operate at different levels of efficiency; that waiting to obtain IRB approval has, in some instances, delayed project initiation; that IRBs presented with identical protocols sometimes asked for different and even competing revisions; and that some decisions made (and positions held) by IRBs are not in accord with federal policy guidance. CONCLUSIONS: While the evidence is sufficient to conclude that there is burden associated with IRB review, it is too limited to allow for valid estimates of its magnitude or to serve as the basis for formulating policies on IRB reform. The single exception is multicenter research, for which we found that review by several local IRBs is likely to be burdensome. No mechanism currently exists at the national level to gather systematic evidence on the intersection between research and IRB review. This gap is of concern in light of the changing nature of research and the increasingly important role that research is envisioned to play in improving the overall quality of health care.