Certificates of confidentiality and unexpected complications for pragmatic clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: The need to protect the confidentiality of research data has long been recognized. One means to help protect research data from use in civil or criminal matters in the United States is a Certificate of Confidentiality (CoC). Until recently, investigators applied for a CoC when conducting research that was sensitive, stigmatizing or where the disclosure of private information could possibly result in civil or criminal liability. However, effective October 1, 2017, CoCs are automatically issued for much research supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). While automatic issuance reduces administrative burden, it also poses some surprising unanticipated challenges for research in general and pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) in particular, which are key elements of learning health systems. METHODS: We reviewed the new policy on CoCs to identify and analyze issues related to it that are potentially problematic for PCTs. RESULTS: We identified three relevant issues: (1) whether the EHR may be populated with research data that may be sensitive or stigmatizing without explicit consent from subjects; (2) incomplete protections for sensitive data in the EHR; and (3) requirements for notifying subjects about the CoC provisions. CONCLUSION: Formal guidance from the NIH is needed to address the application of CoCs to the setting of PCTs. In the meantime, it is essential for researchers designing and conducting PCTs, as well as health care systems in which this research is conducted, to be aware of the nuances inherent in CoCs so they can best adhere to their legal obligations regarding them. In the absence of guidance, special attention should be paid to pragmatic research that populates the electronic health record with research data as well as research conducted without explicit consent. Given the large amount of pragmatic research precipitated by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic, which has been accompanied by major efforts to share data, the need for such guidance is especially urgent.

Ethical and Practical Concerns about IRB Restrictions on the Use of Research Data.

In response to researcher noncompliance with ethical and regulatory provisions governing research with humans, protocol deviations, and unanticipated problems with research, institutional review boards (IRBs) or institutions sometimes impose restrictions on the use of research data, although specific cases in which this happens are unlikely to be known publicly. We review IRB policies at top research institutions in the United States about restrictions on the use of research data and describe potential reasons for restricting the use of such data in the context of ensuring compliance with human subjects research standards. We also discuss ethical considerations related to restricting the use of research data and argue that IRBs have limited regulatory authority to take such actions. Finally, we offer recommendations regarding decision-making about restricting the use of research data and call for additional guidance in this area.

Ethical and Regulatory Concerns in Pragmatic Clinical Trial Monitoring and Oversight.

The implementation of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can be accompanied by unique regulatory challenges. In this paper, we describe the experience and management of regulatory noncompliance during a 25-site acute care PCT. During the trial, the study team conducted a comprehensive audit of all enrollment forms (informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorization forms) and related study documentation. A review of 997 participants' enrollment forms identified 138 (13.8%) that required reporting to the institutional review board due to noncompliance. To prevent subsequent noncompliance, the study team developed and introduced a revised participant tracking system, reviewed all enrollment documentation, and retrained sites regarding study procedures. Based on these experiences, we developed a set of recommendations for future PCTs to ensure both operational success and regulatory compliance.

Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review­and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.