"You Really Do Have to Know the Local Context": IRB Administrators and Researchers on the Implications of the NIH Single IRB Mandate for Multisite Genomic Studies

Using single IRB consultations to meet the educational needs of investigative teams

Single IRB (SIRB) consultation resources were established by the Utah Trial Innovation Center to assist and educate investigative teams prior to the submission of funding applications for multisite, cooperative research. Qualitative analysis of the written consultation materials and meeting minutes revealed the most common areas of education needed by investigative teams, including (a) the differences and relationships between the IRB and a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP); (b) the main phases of the SIRB process; and (c) the use of technology platforms for documentation of SIRB review processes. For investigative teams who are inexperienced with using a SIRB, such consultation in the pre-award period is likely to fill in knowledge gaps and improve the study start-up process.

Developing a Rapid Response Single IRB Model for Conducting Research During a Public Health Emergency

Research is foundational for evidence-based management of patients. Clinical research, however, takes time to plan, conduct, and disseminate-a luxury that is rarely available during a public health emergency. The University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) developed a single institutional review board (IRB), with a vision to establish a rapid review resource for a network focused on clinical research of emerging pathogens in the United States. A core aspect of successful initiation of research during a pandemic or epidemic is the ability to operationalize an approach for rapid ethical review of human subject research and conduct those reviews at multiple sites-without losing any of the substantive aspects of ethics review. This process must be cultivated in anticipation of a public health emergency. US guidance for operationalizing IRB review for multisite research in a public health emergency is not well studied and processes are not well established. UNMC sought to address operational gaps and identify the unique procedural needs of rapid response single IRB (RR-sIRB) review of multisite research by conducting a series of preparedness exercises to develop and test the RR-sIRB model. For decades, emergency responder, healthcare, and public health organizations have conducted emergency preparedness exercises to test requirements for emergency response. In this article, we describe 2 types of simulation exercises conducted by UNMC: workshops and tabletops. This effort represents a unique use of emergency preparedness exercises to develop, refine, and test rapid review functions for an sIRB and to validate readiness of regulatory research processes. Such processes are crucial for conducting rapid, ethical, and sound clinical research in public health emergencies.

Capacity Development of Research Ethics Administrators: Scoping Review

Capacity development of research ethics committees is generally limited to members, and seldom includes administrators. This study sought to map the capacity development efforts of research ethics administrators. A scoping review was conducted. The literature search yielded 92 potentially relevant records, and further screening yielded 22 studies. The 22 studies were extracted and synthesized; two studies spoke directly on administrators’ capacity development, while the remaining 20 focused on the capacity development of committees or of committee members. The two studies which spoke directly on administrators reported about two capacity development efforts targeting administrators in Africa, namely the African Conference for Administrators of Research Ethics Committees, and the West African Bioethics Training Program.

The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review

For decades, the research community called for streamlined Institutional Review Board (IRB) review processes for multisite studies. Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health (NIH) recognized this need and implemented single IRB (sIRB) of record mandates. However, announcing mandates without sufficient operational guidance and tools is insufficient to foster the desired change. Nearly 4 years into implementation of the NIH’s sIRB mandate, operational challenges remain. Fortunately, NIH supports a web-based sIRB platform, the IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx), to facilitate sIRB communication and documentation. IREx has received continuous NIH funding supporting its evolution since 2011 and is now used by over 5,000 Human Research Protection Program and research personnel, 35 sIRBs, and 415 participating sites to operationalize sIRB review and approval on over 400 studies. IREx supports over 2300 reliance relationships with an average of 7 sites per study. The platform is continually used by sIRBs and relying sites, providing a valuable centralized portal for promoting a harmonized sIRB review process. IREx can promote transparency, standardize practice, minimize workflow variation, and mitigate the need for sIRBs to implement significant technical changes to their local electronic systems. IREx has proven to be nimble and adaptable with practice and policy changes over the past decade, as evidenced by continually increasing platform utilization.

Transdisciplinary Perspectives on Precision Medicine

Purpose: The Precision Medicine Health Disparities Collaborative fosters collaboration between researchers with diverse backgrounds in precision medicine and health disparities research, to include training at the interface between genomics and health disparities. Understanding how perceptions about precision medicine differ by background may inform activities to better understand such differences. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Center members and beyond. Data were collected on categories of educational background, current activities, and level of agreement with 20 statements related to genomics and health disparities. Respondents categorized their background and activities as social/behavioral, genetics, both, or neither. Fisher's exact test was used to assess levels of agreement in response to each statement. Statistically significant associations were further analyzed using ordinal logistic regression adjusting for age, self-identified race/ethnicity, and gender. Results: Of 130 respondents, 50 (38%) identified educational backgrounds and current activities as social-behavioral or genomic 55 (42%). Respondents differed by educational background on the statement Lifestyle and other life experiences influence how genes impact disease risk (p=0.0009). Respondents also differed by current activities on the statement Reducing disparities in access to health care will make precision medicine more effective (p=0.0008), and on Racism and discrimination make me concerned about how genetic test results will be used (p=0.0011). Conclusions: Respondents who differed on prior education and current activities, whether social behavioral science or human genomics, were associated with different perceptions regarding precision medicine and health disparities. These results identify potential barriers and opportunities to strengthen transdisciplinary collaboration.

Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Nutrition Research Network: Rationale and Protocol for a Study to Validate the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition Consensus-Derived Diagnostic Indicators For Adult And Pediatric Malnutrition and to Determine Optimal Registered Dietitian Nutritionist Staffing in Acute Care Hospital Settings

No systematic, universally accepted method of diagnosing malnutrition in hospitalized patients exists, which may contribute to underdiagnosis, undertreatment, and poorer patient outcomes. To address this issue, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics is conducting a cohort study to: assess the predictive validity of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics/American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition indicators for the diagnosis of adult and pediatric malnutrition in hospital settings; assess the interrater reliability of the indicators for the diagnosis of adult and pediatric malnutrition; and quantify the level of registered dietitian nutritionist care needed to improve patient outcomes. Up to 60 adult and 60 pediatric hospital sites will collect data to estimate level of registered dietitian nutritionist care, along with patient medical history and Malnutrition Screening Tool (adult) or STRONGkids (pediatric) results. A subset of 600 adult and 600 pediatric patients (∼1:1 screened as high- or low-risk for malnutrition) will be randomly selected for the indicators for the diagnosis of adult and pediatric malnutrition and Nutrition Focused Physical Exam data collection; 100 adult and 100 pediatric patients in this group will also undergo a bioelectrical impedance analysis measurement. Additional nutrition care and medical outcomes (eg, mortality and length of stay) will be collected for a 3-month period after the initial nutrition encounter. Multilevel linear, logistic, Poisson, or Cox regression models will be used to assess indicators for the diagnosis of adult and pediatric malnutrition validity and registered dietitian nutritionist staffing levels as appropriate for each medical outcome. Validation results will allow US clinicians to standardize the way they diagnose malnutrition in hospitalized patients, and the staffing data will support advocacy for available registered dietitian nutritionist-delivered malnutrition treatment to improve patient outcomes.