Reducing Regulatory Burdens on Research with Human Subjects: A Case Study of the Transition to the Final Common Rule at Boston Medical Center and Boston University Medical Campus

Abstract

Boston Medical Center/Boston University Medical Campus recently reduced certain requirements for human subjects research where this could be done without adversely affecting the rights and welfare of participants, in anticipation of changes in the Final Common Rule. Modifications affected exempt and expedited categories, approval periods, ceding review, Quality Improvement/Quality Assessment activities, and some requirements for pregnant women, prisoners, and children. This case study may assist other institutions in responding to the Final Common Rule.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

45 C.F.R. Part 46, Subpart A (2017). Note that 45 C.F.R. Part 46 refers to the regulations for the Department of Health and Human Services, while each of the other 15 agencies has its own part (e.g., 7 C.F.R. part 1c for the Department of Agriculture).

Nichols ,

Brako ,

S.M.

Rivera ,

Tahmassian ,

M.F.

Jones ,

H.H.

Pierce , and

B.E.

Bierer , “What Do Revised U.S. Rules mean for Human Research?” Science 357, no. 6352 (2017) 650-651.

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 82 Federal Register 7149-7274 (to be codified at 45 C.F.R. pt. 46) (original effective date January 19, 2018); Delay of the Revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, 83 Federal Register 2885-2894 (establishing an effective date of July 19, 2018; indicating plans to propose an additional 6-month delay).

The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (Belmont Report), DHEW Publication OS78-0012, Washington, D.C., September 30, 1978.

L.M.

Kopelman

. “Minimal Risk as an International Ethical Standard in Research,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 29 (2006): 351-378.

Office of Human Research Protection, Department of Health & Human Services, “FWAs,” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/register-irbs-and-obtain-fwas/fwas/index.html> (last visited February 2, 2018); Department of Health and Human Services, “Assurance Process FAQs: What research does the Federalwide Assurance (FWA) cover” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/assurance-process/index.html> (last visited February 2, 2018); Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, supra note 3, at 7180-7181.

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Federal Register 80, 53933-54061, at 54044.

Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, “AAHRPP Accreditation Standards” available at <http://www.aahrpp.org/apply/resources/procedures-and-standards> (last visited February 2, 2018>.

Research Ethics and Compliance, University of Michigan. “HRPP Innovation & Demonstration Initiative” available at <http://research-compliance.umich.edu/hrpp-innovation-demonstration-initiative> (last visited February 2, 2018); Flexibility Coalition, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, University of Southern California, “Flexibility,” available at <http://oprs.usc.edu/about/initiatives/flex/> (last visited February 2, 2018); Flexibility Coalition, Office for the Protection of Research Subjects, University of Southern California, “Creative Flexibility,” available at <https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2013/07/Creative-Flexibility-Packet-2.29.16.pdf> (last visited February 2, 2018).

10.

Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, Federal Register 76, 44512-44531, at 44514.

11.

See supra note 7, at 53936.

12.

See supra note 9.

13.

See Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects, supra note 3, at 7181.

14.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.102(d)

15.

See supra note 9.

16.

See supra note 7, at 7260.

17.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.101(b).

18.

Office for Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services. “Exempt Research and Research That May Undergo Expedited Review,” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/exempt-research-and-research-expedited-review/index.html> (last visited on February 2, 2018).

19.

See supra note 8.

20.

J.D.

Loe ,

D.A.

Winkelman , and

C.T.

Robertson . “An Assessment of the Human Subjects Protection Review Process for Exempt Research,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 44, no. 3 (2016): 481-491.

21.

R.A.

Shweder and

R.E.

Nisbett , “Long-Sought Research Deregulation Is Upon Us. Don't Squander the Moment,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 63, no. 28 (2017): A44-A44; K. Murphy, “Less Scrutiny for Social Scientists,” New York Times, May 22, 2017, D3.

22.

See supra note 20.

23.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.101(b)(2)

24.

Committee A on Academic Freedom and Tenure, American Association of University Professors, “Regulation of Research on Human Subjects: Academic Freedom and the Institutional Review Board,” available at <https://www.aaup.org/report/regulation-research-human-subjects-academic-freedom-and-institutional-review-board> (last visited on February 2, 2018); Committee on Revisions to the Common Rule for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research in the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Committee on National Statistics, Committee on Population, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Institute of Medicine, National Research Council, “Proposed Revisions to the Common Rule for the protection of Human Subjects in the Behavioral and Social Sciences,” (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2014).

25.

See supra note 9.

26.

See supra note 3 at 7262; 111(a)(7) describes the criteria for IRB approval of data security: “When appropriate, there are adequate provisions to protect the privacy of subjects and to maintain the confidentiality of data.” At 7264.

27.

See id.

28.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.101(b)(4).

29.

See supra note 9.

30.

See supra note 3, at 7262.

31.

D.M.

Hausman

, “Group Risks, Risks to Groups, and Group Engagement in Genetics Research,” Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 17 (2007): 351-369; D.B. Resnik, R.R. Sharp. “Protecting Third Parties in Human Subjects Research,” IRB 28, no. 4 (2006): 1-7.

32.

See supra note 9.

33.

Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, “Research Exempt from IRB Review” available at <https://irb.research.chop.edu/sites/default/files/documents/IRBSOP302.pdf> (last visited February 2, 2018).

34.

See supra note 3, at 7262-7263.

35.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.109(e).

36.

Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, “Continuing Review Guidance (2010),” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-continuing-review-2010/> (last visited on August 24, 2017).

37.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.109(e).

38.

See supra note 9.

39.

See supra note 3 at 7264; §110 is “Expedited review procedures for certain kinds of research involving no more than minimal risk, and for minor changes in approved research;” limited IRB review under §104(d)(2)(iii) and (d)(3)(i)(C) covers review of data security and under §104 (d)(7) and (8) covers review of broad consent.

40.

See supra note 3 at 7206.

41.

Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, “Clinical Research and the HIPAA Privacy Rule,” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/research/index.html?language=es> (last visited February 2, 2018).

42.

See supra note 9.

43.

See supra note 3, at 7267.

44.

Millum and

Menikoff . “Streamlining Ethical Review,” Annals of Internal Medicine 153, no. 10 (2010): 655-657; C. Grady, “Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges,” Chest 148, no. 5 (2015): 1148-1155; A-M. Ervin, H.A. Taylor, and S. Ehrhardt, “NIH Policy on Single-IRB Review – A New Era in Multicenter Studies,” N. Engl. J. Med. 375, no. 24 (2016): 2315-2317.

45.

National Institutes of Health, “Final NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research,” available at <https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-16-094.html> (last visited February 2, 2018). The deadline has been extended twice already, and may have been extended again by the time this article is published.

46.

See supra note 9.

47.

45 C.F.R. Part 46.110; Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, “OHRP Expedited Review Categories (1998),” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/categories-of-research-expedited-review-procedure-1998/index.html> (last visited February 2, 2018).

48.

See supra note 9.

49.

See supra note 3, at 7264.

50.

Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, “July 25-26, 2017 - SACHRP Meeting” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp-committee/meetings/2017-july-25-26.index.html> (last visited February 2, 2018).

51.

Subpart B: 45 C.F.R. 46.201-207; Subpart C: 45 C.F.R. 46.301-306; Subpart D: 45 C.F.R. 46.401-409.

52.

See supra note 3, at 7151.

53.

See supra note 3, at 7261.

54.

See id.

55.

45 C.F.R. 46.204(b).

56.

45 C.F.R. 46.204(i).

57.

See supra note 9.

58.

See supra note 3, at 7183.

59.

Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, “Tip Sheet 27: Developing and Applying Equivalent Protections,” available at <https://admin.share.aahrpp.org/Website%20Documents/Tip_Sheet_27_Guidance_on_Equivalent_Protections.pdf> (last visited February 2, 2018).

60.

See supra note 33.

61.

45 C.F.R. 46.406.

62.

See supra note 9.

63.

Office of Human Research Protections, Department of Health and Human Services, “What Happens if a Human Subject Becomes a Prisoner during the Course of a Research Study?” available at <https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/prisoner-research/index.html> (last visited February 2, 2018).

64.

See supra note 9.

65.

See supra note 5.