The National Institutes of Health (NIH) issued a new policy that requires a single institutional review board (IRB) of record be used for all protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States, effective January 2018. This policy affects several hundred clinical trials opened annually across the NIH. Limited data exist to compare the use of a single IRB to that of multiple local IRBs, so some institutions are resistant to or distrustful of single IRBs. Since 2001, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has funded a central IRB (CIRB) that provides human patient reviews for its extensive national cancer clinical trials program. This paper presents data to show the adoption, efficiencies gained, and satisfaction of the CIRB among NCI trial networks and reviews key lessons gleaned from 16 years of experience that may be informative for others charged with implementation of the new NIH single-IRB policy.
1562 Background: The National Cancer Institute supports several national trial networks which responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic to overcome operational barriers to clinical cancer research. The National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) focuses on late phase treatment trials, while the Experimental Therapeutics Clinical Trials Network (ETCTN) conducts early phase treatment trials. We report findings on the experience and adaptations of these networks during COVID-19. Methods: Using 2019 and 2020 accrual data, we analyzed changes in accrual levels and demographics. We also evaluated changes in trial activation numbers and timelines. In July 2020, we surveyed 255 investigators from academic and community sites to assess changes in research practices and get feedback on modified processes implemented by NCI to address trial conduct during the pandemic. Results: Accrual across the NCTN and ETCTN fell significantly in mid-March 2020, dropping from a weekly average of 307 patients in February to 169 the week of March 23-29. Accrual began to recover in June and July but did not return to pre-pandemic levels until September. Accrual in November and December 2020 followed the patterns seen in 2019, with short-term drops around major holidays. Non-White participants were enrolled to NCTN and ETCTN trials at similar monthly rates throughout 2019 and 2020, with slightly higher overall enrollment in 2020 (23.7% vs. 22.7%). New trials continued to be developed and activated throughout 2020. Between 2017 and 2019, an average of 71 trials were activated per year (NCTN = 46, ETCTN = 25), compared to 84 activated in 2020 (NCTN = 58, ETCTN = 26). The average time to trial activation was similar or slightly longer in 2020 compared to 2019. The investigator survey yielded 111 responses (43.5% response rate). 43% of respondents’ sites paused enrollment to phase 1 trials during the pandemic, compared to 18% for phase 3 trials. Many sites temporarily stopped opening new trials and processing specimens. Sites were more likely to keep enrolling to trials offering clear potential benefit and pause complex trials that required more patient contact. Respondents attributed some of the decline in accrual to a reduction in overall patient volume, increased patient concerns, and reduced research staff on site. Respondents were asked to rate the usefulness of modified trial processes NCI put in place during the pandemic. Telehealth was rated most useful (avg. 4.6/5), followed by shipping oral IND agents to enrolled patients (4.5/5), remote informed consent (4.2/5), coordinating care with local providers (3.9/5), and remote auditing (3.7/5). Conclusions: The cancer trials community has an opportunity to learn from working through the challenges of COVID-19. NCI will seek to continue and expand on modifications to clinical trial processes that have the potential to improve operational efficiency, reduce cost, and help bring trials to more patients.
e18259 Background: NCI instituted a Central IRB (CIRB) with voluntary participation in 2001 for its late-phase trials and demonstrated that efficiency could be improved and costs reduced (Wagner et al JCO, 2010; 28). As a forerunner to the new NIH policy for single IRBs for all NIH multi-site trials (Hudson et al. JAMA Oct 4, 2010), NCI implemented a new CIRB model in 2014 where the CIRB was the IRB of record. We report adoption data of the new model within NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and lessons learned from the rollout. Methods: We reviewed: Annual CIRB participant data from 2013-2016; site/accrual data for late phase trials activated between 2013-2016 (N = 64) via CIRB or local IRBs; and data from CIRB reports to identify acceptance and lessons learned. We compared time required for CIRB protocol reviews via the new model to baseline measures in the literature. Results: Of the 2,300 U.S. NCTN sites, the percentage of participation went from 47% in 2013, to 74% (2014), 79% (2015), and 81% (2016). For activated trials, a median of 43% of sites used their local IRB in 2013, dropping to 18% in 2014, 5% in 2015, and only 1% in 2016; i.e., 99% of sites opening trials in 2016 did so using the CIRB. Annual accrual to NCTN trials remained steady through the CIRB adoption; CIRB sites represented a median of 56% of total accrual in 2013 increasing to 87% in 2016. Help-desk and survey data indicate increased acceptance and a reduction of concerns over the 3 years. Previous analyses prior to 2013 reported a median of 70-123 days required from protocol application receipt to final CIRB approval; the new model reports a median of 41 days in 2016. Conclusions: NCI has demonstrated that a single IRB for multi-site trials is not only viable but valuable. Its new CIRB model rollout over 3 years has resulted in a doubling of site adoption, high utilization rates, further efficiencies, and overall acceptance, with no noticeable effect on overall NCTN accrual. Our experiences provide important lessons learned and insights into the successful implementation of a single IRB at a national level, and support the feasibility of NIH’s recently finalized policy requiring all sites to use a single IRB for multi-site research.
The process of creating a new Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Committee (REC) presents many challenges; however, little has been published to describe this experience. Thus, many questions about creating a new IRB/REC and the challenges they face remain. The establishment of a new federal-wide single IRB provided a rare opportunity to describe these experience and outcomes. A census of the activity and outcomes of this new board is reported for its first 3 years of operation: The convened board approved 50 protocols, required an average of 93.24 days and 2.76 reviews for protocol approval, and issued an average of 31.82 stipulations per protocol. The census data helped to identify several issues that impacted the board’s outcomes and it serves as a baseline for future comparisons. The overall dynamics, challenges, and outcomes of this new single IRB are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.