Effects of Regulatory Support Services on Institutional Review Board Turnaround Times

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

Background/Objective:

Along with the greater research enterprise, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) had to quickly adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic. IRBs had to review and oversee COVID-related research, while navigating strict public health measures and a workforce largely relegated to working from home. Our objectives were to measure adjustments to standard IRB review processes, IRB turnaround time and document and any novel ethical issues encountered.

Methods:

Structured data requests were sent to members of the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight directing Human Research Protection Programs (HRPP).

Results:

Fourteen of the 32 HRPP director members responded to a questionnaire about their approach to review and oversight during COVID-19. Eleven of the 14 provided summary data on COVID-19-specific protocols and six of the 11 provided protocol-related documents for our review. All respondents adopted at least one additional COVID-19-specific step to their usual review process. The average turnaround time for convened and expedited IRB reviews was 15 calendar days. In our review of the documents from 194 COVID-19-specific protocols (n = 302 documents), we identified only a single review that raised ethical concerns unique to COVID-19.

Conclusions:

Our data provide a snapshot of how HRPPs approached the review of COVID-19-specific protocols at the start of the pandemic in the USA. While not generalizable to all HRPPs, these data indicate that HRPPs can adapt and respond quickly response to a pandemic and likely need little novel expertise in the review and oversight of COVID-19-specific protocols.

Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions

IACUCs serve a critical role in animal care and use programs, ensuring that institutions which use animals in research and teaching do so responsibly and humanely. This role is defined in part by federal regulations, policies, and guidelines that prescribe the establishment and function of these committees. Often, IACUC administrators are expected to evaluate IACUC performance to ensure that committees execute these functions effectively, and in a manner that is suitable to the institution. However, methods for IACUC performance evaluation have not been well described in the peer-reviewed literature. To address this deficit, we conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE to identify methods that have been used to assess IACUCs. The scope of this review was intentionally broad to capture evaluation methods used by other institutional committees with similar responsibilities in overseeing research conduct, including animal ethics committees (AECs), institutional biosafety committees (IBCs), and institutional review boards (IRBs). Over 100 publications that included empirical evaluation methods were identified, although only 17 evaluated IACUCs in the United States. A substantial number of the studies used qualitative methods, such as surveys or questionnaires, interviews, and observations. The IACUC functions and characteristics most often assessed in the 17 publications included components of the protocol review processes and committee membership. We compiled this information to offer IACUC administrators a source of methodologies that can be incorporated into quality improvement and IACUC performance evaluation efforts. We also suggest ways in which organizations may evaluate IACUCs using methods described in the literature for other types of committees.

A personalized Institutional Review Board Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 30 months

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to evaluate whether a dedicated Institutional Review Board (IRB) Liaison Service situated at our Institute's central location could provide additional useful staff support to the investigator community for interactions with the IRB at various levels of protocol submission and review.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Over a period of 2½ years, from January 2015 to June 2017, a total of 501 in-person consultations were performed during office hours, usually 25-30 per month. Most requests concerned new protocol development, IRB policy questions, and strategies for compliance or assistance in addressing IRB comments on returned protocols. We analyzed the results of a user evaluation survey for in-person consults and performed a focused in-depth analysis of the impact of the IRB Liaison Service.

RESULTS

Survey response rate was 43%. Results of 215 completed satisfaction surveys were 100% positive. Users were primarily study coordinators and investigators. Of a randomly selected sample of consultations analyzed in-depth for 67 unique protocols, 73% were subsequently approved within 14 days.

CONCLUSION

National concerns about IRB-related research delays have led to the re-assessment of IRB review processes at institutional levels. Overall, we have found the Liaison Service to be a popular, useful addition to research support for a meaningful number of researchers, enhancing our already research-friendly environment. We plan to continue the service and the evaluation going forward. We will focus in the next phase on exploring whether the Liaison Service can reduce IRB approval times for protocols using its services and on providing support for the use of single IRBs for multi-site studies.

THE FOLLOWING CORE COMPETENCIES ARE ADDRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE

Practice-based learning and improvement.

Operational Characteristics of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States

Background:Federal Law requires approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to conducting human subjects research to ensure ethical distribution of benefits and harms. Notwithstanding this role and almost no prescriptive requirements about design or operation, there is little systematic research describing the key attributes of IRBs, as reported by IRB personnel themselves. Methods: Here, 55 IRB directors completed a survey of 77 questions. The goals of the study were to establish what a typical US IRB "looks like," determine whether IRB characteristics can be summarized by a smaller number of overarching components, determine the best predictors of IRB speed and efficiency, and determine whether IRBs differ by high-level qualitative characteristics such as institution type. The above was explored and tested using the general linear model and principal components analysis, and for the former, dependent variables of interest were, a) the time necessary for an IRB to approve a study, and b) efficiency of the review process for full board and expedited reviews. IVs of interest included multiple IRB characteristics. Results: 1) IRB characteristics can be summarized by four key components; 2) IRB speed and efficiency are most strongly determined by tendency to receive biomedical submissions, especially drug-related; and 3) IRBs do vary by institution type on some key variables. Conclusion: These results are the first step toward establishing national norms and building a working model of US IRBs to which other IRBs can compare themselves.

The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time

Lengthy review times for institutional review boards (IRBs) are a well-known barrier to research. In response to numerous calls to reduce review times, we devised "Real-Time IRB," a process that drastically reduces IRB review time. In this, investigators and study staff attend the IRB meeting and make changes to the protocol while the IRB continues its meeting, so that final approval can be issued at the meeting. This achieved an overall reduction in time from submission to the IRB to final approval of 40%. While this process is time and resource intensive, and cannot address all delays in research, it shows great promise for increasing the pace by which research is translated to patient care.

Regulatory Support Improves Subsequent IRB Approval Rates in Studies Initially Deemed Not Ready for Review: A CTSA Institution's Experience

We evaluated the impact of a regulatory support service (known as the Regulatory Knowledge and Support [RKS] program), part of the Medical University of South Carolina's Clinical and Translational Science Award, on the success of Institutional Review Board (IRB) applications that have previously been deemed by the IRB to be Not Ready for Review (NRR). At the time of this evaluation, 77 studies had been deemed NRR, 53 of which came from trainees and junior faculty. All the applications that received regulatory support either received IRB approval or were deemed to not be research, and therefore did not require IRB review. In all, 39.1% (n = 18) of the research teams who did not accept regulatory support successfully received IRB approval. Providing regulatory support, particularly to trainees and junior faculty, may be associated with better success in obtaining IRB approval as well as preventing the unnecessary submission of projects that are not research and would therefore not require IRB review or approval.

Commentary on "Regulatory Support Improves Subsequent IRB/REC Approval Rates in Studies Initially Deemed Not Ready for Review: A CTSA Institution's Experience"

In response to researcher concerns a number of initiatives have been developed to support individual researchers seeking ethics review and approval. In this issue, Sonne et al. (2017) outline an example of an intervention to support researchers, which they refer to as a Regulatory Knowledge Support (RKS) service. While the study points to potential benefits, other studies have not had the desired impact on key performance measures. There is a need to develop a community of practice and expand the burgeoning evidence base regarding what interventions work, for whom, and under what circumstances. Advancing the research agenda requires: the development of theoretical models for intervention design and evaluation; developing consensus on key data for collection and measures of effectiveness; conducting evaluations using the strongest possible study designs, and; publishing the findings of evaluations.