A snapshot of U.S. IRB review of COVID-19 research in the early pandemic

Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study

Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during the pandemic. We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, global online survey of chairs (or their delegates) of ERCs who were involved in the review of COVID-19-related research protocols after March 2020. The survey ran from October 2022 to February 2023 and consisted of 50 items, with opportunities for descriptive responses to open-ended questions. Two hundred and three participants [130 from high-income countries (HICs) and 73 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] completed our survey. Respondents came from diverse entities and organizations from 48 countries (19 HICs and 29 LMICs) in all World Health Organization regions. Responses show little of the increased global funding for COVID-19 research was allotted to the operation of ERCs. Few ERCs had pre-existing internal policies to address operation during public health emergencies, but almost half used existing guidelines. Most ERCs modified existing procedures or designed and implemented new ones but had not evaluated the success of these changes. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed permanently implementing several of them. Few ERCs added new members but non-member experts were consulted; quorum was generally achieved. Collaboration among ERCs was infrequent, but reviews conducted by external ERCs were recognized and validated. Review volume increased during the pandemic, with COVID-19-related studies being prioritized. Most protocol reviews were reported as taking less than three weeks. One-third of respondents reported external pressure on their ERCs from different stakeholders to approve or reject specific COVID-19-related protocols. ERC members faced significant challenges to keep their committees functioning during the pandemic. Our findings can inform ERC approaches towards future public health emergencies. To our knowledge, this is the first international, COVID-19-related study of its kind.

Factors Associated with IRB Review Time in a Non-Federally Funded Study Using an sIRB of Record

From 2018 to 2020, U.S. federal mandates began requiring the use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) of record for federally funded, multisite studies. With an interest in the efficiency of site activation, we compared the frequency with which local review and approval and three different reliance options (ways to establish a reliance agreement between the sIRB and the relying institution) were used during this period in a multisite, non-federally funded study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03928548). Using general linear models, we analyzed the relationships between local reliance or approval and sIRB of record approval times and (a) the regulatory option selected and (b) relying-site and process characteristics. Eighty-five sites received sIRB approval through 72 submissions (40% using local review, 46% using the SMART IRB agreement, 10% using an IRB authorization agreement, and 4% using a letter of support). Median time to establish a local reliance or study approval and sIRB approval were longest for sites using a SMART IRB agreement. Study-site region and the time of submission were significantly associated with local reliance or approval time, which averaged 129 and 107 days faster for Midwestern (p = 0.03) or Western (p = 0.02) sites, respectively, and 70 days slower for Northeastern sites (p = 0.42) compared with sites in the South, and 91 days slower when regulatory communication was initiated during or after February 2019 compared with before (p = 0.02). Similar relationships between sIRB approval time and region and time frame were observed; in addition, approval time was 103 days slower for sites affiliated with a research 1 (R1) university versus not (p = 0.02). Region of the country, time frame, and R1 university affiliation were associated with variations in study-site activation in a non-federally funded, multisite study.

Conducting clinical genomics research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from the CSER consortium experience

Clinical research studies have navigated many changes throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to describe the pandemic's impact on research operations in the context of a clinical genomics research consortium that aimed to enroll a majority of participants from underrepresented populations. We interviewed (July to November 2020) and surveyed (May to August 2021) representatives of six projects in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Research (CSER) consortium, which studies the implementation of genome sequencing in the clinical care of patients from populations that are underrepresented in genomics research or are medically underserved. Questions focused on COVID's impact on participant recruitment, enrollment, and engagement, and the transition to teleresearch. Responses were combined and thematically analyzed. Projects described factors at the project, institutional, and community levels that affected their experiences. Project factors included the project's progress at the pandemic's onset, the urgency of in-person clinical care for the disease being studied, and the degree to which teleresearch procedures were already incorporated. Institutional and community factors included institutional guidance for research and clinical care and the burden of COVID on the local community. Overall, being responsive to community experiences and values was essential to how CSER navigated evolving challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Engaging key stakeholders to overcome barriers to studying the quality of research ethics oversight

The primary purpose of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is to protect the rights and welfare of human research participants. Evaluation and measurement of how IRBs satisfy this purpose and other important goals are open questions that demand empirical research. Research on IRBs, and the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) of which they are often a part, is necessary to inform evidence-based practices, policies, and approaches to quality improvement in human research protections. However, to date, HRPP and IRB engagement in empirical research about their own activities and performance has been limited. To promote engagement of HRPPs and IRBs in self-reflective research on HRPP and IRB quality and effectiveness, barriers to their participation need to be addressed. These include: extensive workloads, limited information technology systems, and few universally accepted or consistently measured metrics for HRPP/IRB quality and effectiveness. Additionally, institutional leaders may have concerns about confidentiality. Professional norms around the value of participating in this type of research are lacking. Lastly, obtaining external funding for research on IRBs and HRPPs is challenging. As a group of HRPP professionals and researchers actively involved in a research consortium focused on IRB quality and effectiveness, we identify potential levers for supporting and encouraging HRPP and IRB engagement in research on quality and effectiveness. We maintain that this research should be informed by the core principles of patient- and community-engaged research, in which members and key stakeholders of the community to be studied are included as key informants and members of the research team. This ensures that relevant questions are asked and that data are interpreted to produce meaningful recommendations. As such, we offer several ways to increase the participation of HRPP professionals in research as participants, as data sharers, and as investigators.

Revising the legislation of Ethics Committees to ease biomedical research in humans across the world: lessons from the COVID-19 emergency

As a legislative domain that considerably influences implementation of biomedical research, the need to improve the legal rules surrounding the organization and functioning of Ethics Committees in public health, toxicology, and clinical medicine is widely recognized within and outside the European Union. Given the often-heard complaints by researchers about the complexity and length of both the application and the review process by Ethics Committees in the authorization of new studies, adjustments to their legislation appears to be warranted. Within the European Union this seems also all the timelier, given the upcoming new regulation of clinical trials to become effective in early 2022. For this process, valuable lessons can be gleaned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the changes in the functioning of Ethics Committees that were adopted to cope with the exceptional circumstances imposed by the health emergency. The pandemic experience clearly indicates that a more responsive and practical system of applications' review by the Ethics Committees can be squared with acceptable levels of transparency and reliability in ethical accountability. For this reason, countries like Italy should consider undertaking a significant revision of the public law rules that govern the review processes of Ethics Committees in light of the pandemic experience. (www.actabiomedica.it).