There are compelling medical, ethical, and legal arguments that support mandating use of a central institutional review board (CIRB) for the review of clinical trials performed at multiple institutional sites. Progress against serious diseases depends on this.
D. S.Tan, S. S.Yom, M. S.Tsao, and H. I.Passet. al., “The International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer Consensus Statement on Optimizing Management of EGFR Mutation-Positive Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: Status in 2016,”Journal of Thoracic Oncology11, no. 7 (2016): 946-963.
3.
The Nuremberg Code (1947), in A.Mitscherlich and F.Mielke, Doctors of Infamy: The Story of the Nazi Medical Crimes (New York: Schuman, 1949): at xxiii-xxv.
4.
B. Snežana, Bošnjak, “The Declaration of Helsinki: The Cornerstone of Research Ethics,”Archive of Oncology9, no. 3 (2001): 179-184.
5.
CDC, “Tuskegee Study – Timeline,”NCHHSTP, June25, 2008.
6.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare (DHEW), The Belmont Report, September30, 1978 (Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office).
American Society of Clinical Oncology, “Policy Statement: Oversight of Clinical Research,”Journal of Clinical Oncology21, no. 12 (2003): 2377-2386.
10.
D. K.Check, K. P.Weinfurt, and C. B.Dombecket al., “Use of Central Institutional Review Boards for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States: A Review of the Literature,”Clinical Trials10 (2013): 560-567.
J.Goldberg, 2016, personal communication with author.
18.
Id.
19.
See Check et al., supra note 10; K. E.Flynn, C. L.Hahn, J. M.Kramer, D. K.Check, and C. B.Dombecket al., “Using Central IRBs for Multicenter Clinical Trials in the United States,”PLOS ONE8, no. 1 (2013): e54999.
20.
B.Ravina, L.Deuel, A.Siderowf, and E. R.Dorsey, “Local Institutional Review Board (IRB) Review of a Multicenter Trial: Local Costs without Local Context,”Annals of Neurology67 (2010): 258-260.
21.
A. R.Stark, J. E.Tyson, and P. L.Hibberd, “Variation among Institutional Review Boards in Evaluating the Design of a Multicenter Randomized Trial,”Journal of Perinatololgy30 (2010): 163-169.
22.
B. T.Helfand, A. K.Mongiu, and C. G.Roehrbornet al., Variation in Institutional Review Board Responses to a Standard Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized, Controlled Surgical Trial,”Journal of Urology181 (2009): 2674-2679.
23.
T. H.Wagner, C.Murray, J.Goldberg, J. M.Adler, and J.Abrams, “Costs and Benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board,”Journal of Clinical Oncology28 (2010): 662-666.
24.
Id.
25.
See Flynn et al., supra note 19.
26.
See Ravina et al., supra note 20; The Lancet Neurology. “NeuroNEXT: Accelerating Drug Development in Neurology,”The Lancet Neurology11 (2012): 119; P.Kaufmann and P. P.O'Rourke, “Central Institutional Review Board Review for an Academic Trial Network,”Academic Medicine90, no. 3 (2015): 321-323.
