The IRB structure and medical research reform

Institutional review boards in Saudi Arabia: the first survey-based report on their functions and operations

BACKGROUND

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March 2022. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions.

RESULTS

Twenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). The average turnaround time for expedited research from proposal submission to final decision was 7 days, while it was 20.5 days for the full committee review.

CONCLUSION

Saudi IRBs performed generally well. However, there is room for focused improvement with respect to extra resources and organizational issues that require closer evaluation and guidance from the regulatory bodies.

Assessment of an electronic system for research ethics committees document management: An observational study

Since 1 January 2020, the Central Research Ethics Committee of the Health Ministry implemented PRIISA.BA, an in-house developed electronic system for online submission of health research applications to the 63 public and private research ethics committees (RECs) of Buenos Aires City, Argentina. This study though to compare the times to first review and the time to approval among applications submitted prior to PRIISA.BA and thereafter, across public RECs. All public RECs of the city were invited to participate. Overall, 453 applications from 10 RECs (242 pre- and 211 post-PRIISA.BA) were available for the analyses. There was a decrease in the time to first review and an increase in the time to approval after PRIISA.BA implementation. The increase in time to approval was transient and limited to the first three months. The results were consistent with analyses limited to non-COVID applications. Our results show an increase in the times to approval after the implementation of an electronic system for online submission of health research applications that, although transient, was significant. These data could be relevant to other RECs implementing this technology since it emphasizes the need of monitoring potential unnecessary delays in reviews during the critical initial period.

Bolstering the complex study start-up process at NCI cancer centers using technology

Background

The study startup process for interventional clinical trials is a complex process that involves the efforts of many different teams. Each team is responsible for their startup checklist in which they verify that the necessary tasks are done before a study can move on to the next team. This regulatory process provides quality assurance and is vital for ensuring patient safety [10]. However, without having this startup process centralized and optimized, study approval can take longer than necessary as time is lost when it passes through many different hands.

Objective

This manuscript highlights the process and the systems that were developed at The University of Kansas Comprehensive Cancer Center regarding the study startup process. To facilitate this process the regulatory management, site development, cancer center administration, and the Biostatistics & Informatics Shared Resources (BISR) teams came together to build a platform aimed at streamlining the startup process and providing a transparent view of where a study is in the startup process.

Process

Ensuring the guidelines are clearly articulated for the review criteria of each of the three review boards, i.e., Disease Working Group (DWG), Executive Resourcing Committee (ERC), and Protocol Review and Monitoring Committee (PRMC) along with a system that can track every step and its history throughout the review process.

Results

Well-defined processes and tracking methodologies have allowed the operations teams to track each study closely and ensure the 90-day and 120-day deadlines are met, this allows the operational team to dynamically prioritize their work daily. It also provides Principal investigators a transparent view of where their study stands within the study startup process and allows them to prepare for the next steps accordingly.

Conclusion/future work

The current process and technology deployment has been a significant improvement to expedite the review process and minimize study startup delays. There are still a few opportunities to fine-tune the study startup process; an example of which includes automatically informing the operational managers or the study teams to act upon deadlines regarding study review rather than the current manual communication process which involves them looking it up in the system which can add delays.