Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study

Ceilidh Nichols, Lynn E. Kunkel, Robin Baker, Eve Jelstrom, Megan Addis, Kim A. Hoffman, Dennis McCarty, Philip (Todd) Korthuis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number100319
JournalContemporary Clinical Trials Communications
Volume14
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2019

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Substance-Related Disorders
Clinical Trials
Opioid Analgesics
Communication
Research Personnel
Buprenorphine
Naltrexone
Narcotic Antagonists
Methadone

Keywords

  • Clinical trial regulations
  • Institutional Review Boards
  • NIH IRB regulations
  • Single IRB

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies : A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study. / Nichols, Ceilidh; Kunkel, Lynn E.; Baker, Robin; Jelstrom, Eve; Addis, Megan; Hoffman, Kim A.; McCarty, Dennis; Korthuis, Philip (Todd).

In: Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, Vol. 14, 100319, 01.06.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{36e242b5cad24bdf96f65d08cce57ece,
title = "Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study",
abstract = "Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.",
keywords = "Clinical trial regulations, Institutional Review Boards, NIH IRB regulations, Single IRB",
author = "Ceilidh Nichols and Kunkel, {Lynn E.} and Robin Baker and Eve Jelstrom and Megan Addis and Hoffman, {Kim A.} and Dennis McCarty and Korthuis, {Philip (Todd)}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100319",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
journal = "Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications",
issn = "2451-8654",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies

T2 - A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study

AU - Nichols, Ceilidh

AU - Kunkel, Lynn E.

AU - Baker, Robin

AU - Jelstrom, Eve

AU - Addis, Megan

AU - Hoffman, Kim A.

AU - McCarty, Dennis

AU - Korthuis, Philip (Todd)

PY - 2019/6/1

Y1 - 2019/6/1

N2 - Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.

AB - Recent NIH policy stipulates that multi-site studies must use a single or IRB (Institutional Review Board) in order to streamline the review process while maintaining standards for human subjects protection. The Western States Node of the Clinical Trials Network (CTN) used a single IRB for protocol CTN-0067, a clinical trial testing the use of an opioid antagonist (extended-release naltrexone) versus opioid agonists (buprenorphine or methadone) for opioid use disorders among individuals living with HIV. This case study discusses the processes and challenges associated with use of a single IRB. These lessons are also informed by other single IRB experiences within the CTN. The intention of the NIH single IRB policy is to facilitate efficient IRB processes. Advanced planning and transparent communication, however, are critical to avoid stalling IRB approval and protocol implementation. Research teams need to account for local IRB willingness to cede to a single IRB and understand the variations in interpretations of abbreviated reviews. In order to facilitate the effective use of single IRBs, recommendations include assigning staff at each study site for IRB submission coordination and interaction with the lead site IRB staff, training investigators and key regulatory staff on expectations for working with single IRBs, dedicating a regulatory specialist at the lead site to manage the process, developing a communication plan, and supporting the development of strong working relationships with local regulatory staff and the single IRB. The CTN experiences with single IRBs may provide insights for other investigators.

KW - Clinical trial regulations

KW - Institutional Review Boards

KW - NIH IRB regulations

KW - Single IRB

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059690011&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85059690011&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100319

DO - 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100319

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85059690011

VL - 14

JO - Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

JF - Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications

SN - 2451-8654

M1 - 100319

ER -