The NIH has initiated a plan to mandate use of central IRBs for all multi-site research. This manuscript argues against the mandate, proposing that there is inadequate evidence to support the purported gains in efficiency and that the ethical integrity of research may suffer with any exclusion of the local review voice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
National Institutes of Health, NOT-OD-15-026 Request for Comments on the Draft NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research (December14, 2014).
2.
J.Menikoff, “The Paradoxical Problem with Multiple-IRB Review,”New England Journal of Medicine363, no. 17 (2010): 1591-1593.
3.
R.McWiliamset al., “Problematic Variation in Local Institutional Review of a Multicenter Genetic Epidemiology Study,”JAMA290, no. 3 (2003): 360-366; L.Greenet al., “Impact of Institutional Review Board Practice Variation on Observational Health Services Research,”Health Services Research Journal41, no. 1 (2006): 214-230.
4.
See Menikoff, supra note 2.
5.
The Belmont Report, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Bethesda, Md.: The Commission, 1978).
6.
See Greene et al., supra note 3.
7.
Secretary's Advisory Council on Human Research Protections, Attachment F: Recommendations Regarding the Draft NIH Policy on the Use of a Single IRB for Multi-Site Research (April24, 2015).
8.
Id.
9.
Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative, Use of Central IRBs for Multicenter Clinical Trials, Final Report; D. K.Checket al., “Use of Central Institutional Review Boards for Multi-center Clinical Trials in the United States: A Review of the Literature,”Clinical Trials10, no. 4 (2013): 560-567; G.Silberman and K. L.Kahn, “Burdens on Research Imposed by Institutional Review Boards: The State of the Evidence and Its Implications for Regulatory Reform,”Milbank Quarterly89, no. 4 (2011): 599-627.
10.
D. M.Dilts and A.Sandler, “Invisible Barriers to Clinical Trials: The Impact of Structural, Infrastructural, and Procedural Barriers to Opening Oncology Clinical Trials,”Journal of Clinical Oncology24, no. 28 (2006): 4545-4552.
11.
See Greene et al., supra note 3.
12.
A. M.Mascetteet al., “Are Central Institutional Review Boards the Solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's Report on Optimizing the IRB Process,”Academic Medicine87, no. 12 (2012): 1710-1714.
13.
M. A.Ervinet al., “Evidence Gaps and Ethical Review of Multicenter Studies,”Science350, no. 6261 (2015): 362-363; C.Grady, “Do IRBs Protect Human Research Participants?”JAMA304 (2010): 1122-1123.
14.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR§ 46.101(f).
