IRB ORIENTATION - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


PPT – IRB ORIENTATION PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 46f4cc-NTNjN


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation



NYU School of Medicine INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD IRB ORIENTATION New Member Helen Panageas, CIP Associate Director Kim Diccianni, CIP Investigator Liaison – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:918
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 171
Provided by: Non65
Learn more at:


Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes


Helen Panageas, CIP Associate Director
Kim Diccianni, CIP Investigator Liaison
Welcome to the IRB
What we will Cover Today
  • What is the IRB
  • and how does the IRB work?
  • Mechanics how to review a protocol.
  • 10 minute BREAK
  • History and Regulations
  • Research ethics essence/spirit a bit distilled
  • Wrap Up Questions, issues, considerations.

What is an IRB?
  • An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a group of
    people formally designated (by feds and
    Institution) to review and monitor research
    involving human subjects.
  • Direct arm of the federal government when it
    comes to protection of human subjects
  • New York University School of Medicine
  • has three IRBs

What is the IRB?
  • The purpose of the IRB is to protect the rights
    and welfare of individuals who are participating
    as subjects in research.
  • The IRB has the authority to approve, disapprove,
    and require modifications to research projects
    involving human subjects.

What is an IRB?
  • Federal Government says
  • An Institutional Review Board is a federally
    mandated group required to review and approve
    human research projects in accordance with Title
    45 Public Welfare DHHS, PART 46 PROTECTION OF
    HUMAN SUBJECTS and FDA regulated studies in
    accordance with TITLE 21 FOOD AND DRUGS, PART 50

What is an IRB?
  • NYU SoM holds a Federalwide Assurance (FWA)
  • The FWA assures that the Institution will be
    compliant with the federal regulations for the
    protection of human subjects for all research
    regardless of funding source
  • The FWA is also approved by OHRP

IRB Membership
  • At least 5 members
  • IRB shall include at least one member whose
    primary concerns are in scientific areas and at
    least one member whose primary concerns are in
    nonscientific areas.
  • Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 46.107

IRB Membership (Continued)
  • IRB shall include at least one member who is not
    otherwise affiliated with the institution and who
    is not part of the immediate family of a person
    who is affiliated with the institution.
  • Federal Regulations at 45 CFR 46.107(d)

IRB Membership (Continued)
  • Consultant as Reviewers
  • An IRB may, in its discretion, invite
    individuals with competence in special areas to
    assist in the review of issues which require
    expertise beyond or in addition to that available
    on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with
    the IRB.
  • Federal regulations at 45 CFR 46.107(f)

The Individual IRB Member
  • Its tough job but you add to the process
  • Your unique professional and personal
  • This includes your scientific, social, ethical,
    community, minority, legal, administrative or
    operational perspectives, maybe all of these.

The Individual IRB Member
  • Members must attend a minimum of ten meetings
  • should attend all meetings for which they are
  • If a member is unable to attend a scheduled
    meeting, that member should inform the IRB Chair,
    Vice Chair, or an IRB Office staff member.

How does it Work?
Human Subjects Protection is a Shared
Team Approach
Institutional Official obligations
  • Sets tone for culture for respect of human
  • Serves as Signatory official on Federalwide
  • Is Knowledgeable contact for OHRP/FDA
  • Ensures effective communication and access to
    human subject information
  • Ensures investigators fulfill responsibilities
  • Facilitates educational activities
  • Holds administrative responsibilities which
  • appoint IRB members and chair
  • provide IRB with resources and staff
  • support IRB authority and decisions

Institutional Obligations
  • Assure that the IRB has necessary resources to
    support the review of human subject research at
    the institution
  • Assure autonomy of IRB decision making process
  • Provide education and training in the responsible
    conduct of research for all researchers and key
  • Develop policies and procedures to administer
    human subject program
  • Ensure assurances are in place and certification
    of IRB review submitted (include collaborating
    performance sites)
  • Implement oversight to ensure compliance with
  • Promptly correct any situations of non-compliance
    with rules and regulations which could jeopardize
    research, funding, or reputation

IRB Chair role
  • Full knowledge of regulations and their
  • Maintain current knowledge of trends and changes
    in protection requirements
  • Convene IRB meetings
  • Perform review functions as needed for new, and
    continuing research
  • Assist institution in review of non-compliance
  • Perform expedited review and/ or designate
    experienced reviewers
  • Assist in the education and development of IRB
  • Assure that documentation (minutes etc.) adhere
    to regulatory requirements
  • Assure that all members have equal voice in
    meeting deliberations and voting
  • Keep deliberations of IRB confidential

IRB panel obligations
  • Apply the rules and regulations to specific
  • Provide constructive review of research proposals
    (in a timely manner)
  • Assist with education of research community
  • Respond to staff requests for attendance and
  • Communicate new developments to research
  • Seek outside consultation when lacking expertise
  • Model exemplary research behavior

IRB member roles
  • Full knowledge of regulations and their
  • Maintain current knowledge of trends and changes
    in protection requirements
  • Attend IRB meetings
  • Perform review functions as needed for new, and
    continuing research
  • Perform expedited review if designated
  • Keep deliberations of IRB confidential

Principal Investigator Obligations
  • Protect Human Subjects
  • Know and apply rules and regulations
  • Apply for prospective IRB approval
  • Follow dictates of IRB
  • Report unanticipated problems to IRB
  • Report changes in research activities and ensure
    changes not initiated without IRB approval
    (except to eliminate immediate hazard to subject)
  • Provide continuing reports of research
  • Obtain informed consent/assent
  • Retain records as required by regulation
  • Train and supervise research team and associates

IRB Autonomy and Support
  • Autonomy of IRB decision making is mandated by
    regulation and assured by the institution through
    the Federalwide assurance. (FWA)
  • In essence, the IRB is a franchise of the federal
    agencies, OHRP and FDA when operating as a duly
    constituted IRB.

Review by Institution 45 CFR 46.112 and 21 CFR
  • Research may be subject to further appropriate
    review and approval or disapproval by officials
    of the institution. However, these officials may
    not approve the research if it has not been
    approved by an IRB.

System Integrity
  • Team system is based on trust and open
  • Issues and problems should be openly reviewed and
  • Complaints or problems should be handled fairly
    and efficiently
  • The Primacy of the Rights and Welfare of subjects
    should guide us all decisions

How does it work?
  • Basically
  • Protocols submitted for review
  • IRB Admin Office processes review
  • Reviews to ensure conformity to regs and NYU
  • Forwards all full board reviews up to board
  • IRB meets once a month (sometimes more by
    teleconference) to review and make decisions on
    new research and the continuation of research
  • IRB also may, at times, have to make tough
    decision disapprove, suspend, terminate etc..

How does it work?
  • In detail
  • That is what we will discuss today
  • How this IRB works
  • Your responsibilities as a member
  • History of research and the development of
    regulations and ethical principles

  • Background
  • Types of review and how this is determined
  • Some IRB speak
  • The process
  • Meeting materials
  • What happens at the meeting
  • Meeting Time
  • Quorum
  • Voting and COIs
  • Review Process at the meeting and the Belmont

Types of IRB Review
How is Review Type Determined?
  • Four Basic Questions
  • Is the Proposed project Research?
  • Does the proposed project involve Human Subjects?
  • What type of Risk is involved in the proposed
  • Does the proposed project meet the criteria for
    the Review Category?

Is the Proposed Project Research?
Research is defined as a systematic
investigation, including research development,
testing and evaluation, designed to develop or
contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Are Human Subjects involved ?
  • Human subject means a living individual about
    whom an investigator (whether professional or
    student) conducting research obtains
  • Data through intervention or interaction with the
    individual, or
  • Identifiable private information.

What is the Type of Risk?
  • Minimal Risk is defined as
  • the probability and magnitude of harm or
    discomfort anticipated in the proposed research
    are not greater, in and of themselves than those
    ordinarily encountered in daily life or
  • during the performance of routine physical or
    psychological examinations or tests.

Review Categories
  • Three Review Types
  • Full, Expedited, Exempt
  • Only
  • Expedited
  • Exempt
  • have Review Categories

The level of review depends on the risk to the
human participants.
Review Continuum
Risk Low Minimal
Review Exempt Expedited
Informed Consent
None May be Waived Required
Review Determinations
  • Who makes it?
  • PI
  • Designees of the Chair
  • What does it mean?
  • Exempt- review by designee
  • Expedited- review by designee
  • Full Board- IRB meeting review

Some IRB Speak
  • AE- Adverse Event
  • CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
  • CIP- Certified IRB Professional
  • COG- Childrens Oncology Group
  • COI- Conflict of Interest
  • DSMB - Data Safety Monitoring Board
  • GOG- Gynecologic Oncology Group
  • HDE- Humanitarian Device Exemption
  • HIPAA- Health Insurance Portability and
    Accountability Act
  • UAP- Unanticipated Problem
  • PHI Private/Protected/Public Health Information

Mechanics of the process
  • About 2 weeks prior to the meeting, an RSVP is
    sent via email.
  • If you dont use your email, give us an
    alternative method by which to communicate with
  • If you are an alternate you are expected to
    attend if the member you are assigned, can not

Your Review Materials
  • Applications, attestations, signatures
  • Protocol summary lay summary
  • Detailed protocol typically authored by sponsor
    or the PI
  • Recruitment materials ads, letters, flyers
  • Diaries, information sheets
  • Consent and assent documents
  • NIH grant document
  • Drug/device brochures
  • Additional review requirements Nursing,
    Biomedical Engineering, Radiation Safety

Your Review Materials
  • Initially daunting but youll soon be able to
    move through them quickly.
  • Check your assignments.
  • If you are primary or secondary read in depth.
  • Otherwise, review the protocol summary, the
    consent forms and any advertisements.
  • Feel free to add to any discussion regardless of
    your assignment.

Your Review Materials
  • The Reviewers Checklist
  • Why was it created?
  • Function
  • Do you need to fill it out?
  • Do you need to hand it in?

How to Prepare
Who Is the IRB Again?
  • Human subjects protection committee
  • Scientific review
  • Ethical review
  • NOT the OCT or SPA
  • NOT Research Compliance

Who is Vulnerable?
  • The research involves VULNERABLE research
  • any time some or all of the subjects are likely
    to be
  • vulnerable to coercion or undue influence.
  • Populations
  • Pregnant women, Prisoners, Children, Mentally
    Disabled persons, Economically or educationally
    disadvantaged persons
  • What about limited English proficiency,
    employees, students, end-of life cases, etc. ???
  • What Must be Done?
  • Always consider vulnerability of
    individuals/groups (PI protocol/application and
    IRB review)
  • Document considerations where practical/notable
    (PI protocol/application and IRB review)
  • Document required findings (IRB level only)
  • Pregnant women
  • Prisoners
  • Children
  • Waiver or alteration of some or all elements of
    informed consent (45 CFR 46.116)

Do a little Quality Control
  • The IRB, reviewing from the principal perspective
    of human protection, begins with a scientifically
    sound clinical trial
  • Bad science bad clinical trial
  • Good science ? good clinical trial

IRB Review Requirements
  • In order for a project to receive IRB approval
    the IRB Board and reviewers must review and
    document certain findings according to the
    Federal Regulations. The research CANNOT be
    approved unless these findings can be made.

Regulatory Requirements For IRB Approval 45 CFR
  • Minimized risks
  • Reasonable risk/benefit ratio
  • Equitable subject selection
  • Informed consent process
  • Informed consent documentation
  • Data monitored for safety
  • Confidentiality/privacy maintained
  • Vulnerable populations protected

Regulations and Guidelines
  • HHS Regulations 45 CFR Part 46
  • FDA CFR 21 Parts 50, 56, 312, 812
  • ICH Good Clinical Practice
  • The regulations are open to interpretation
  • 45 CFR 46, OHRP is the interpreter
  • 21 CFR and it subparts are interpreted by the FDA

  • Three subparts under HHS regulations
  • Subpart B Fetus, Pregnant Women, In Vitro and
    neonates of uncertain viability
  • Subpart C - Prisoners
  • Subpart D Children
  • Subparts under FDA regulations
  • Subpart D - Children

Suggested Review Strategy
  • Review application
  • Look for special issues such as kids, radiation,
    emergency use issues, new drugs/devices,
    genetics, storing samples for future use
  • Read protocol summary
  • Look for site specific issues can we
    logistically perform the study here?
  • Read detailed protocol
  • Look also at any study specific tools, letters,
    ads, extras

Suggested Review Strategy
  • Prepare your comments
  • Written and submitted are wonderful
  • Emailed is even better
  • Editing the consent form
  • Edit right on the document
  • Use legible handwriting
  • Submit marked up document
  • NIH grant
  • Review for consistency
  • Is the study captured in the grant
  • If PI says study pays, are there funds to pay

Suggested Review Strategy
  • Scientific Reviewers
  • 1. Read protocol jot down comments, thoughts
    suggestions etc..
  • 2. Read Consent Mark it up!
  • 3. Look at any additional info (ads, scripts,
  • 4. Think about 45 CFR 46.111 can you make the
  • If yes, be prepared to explain how
  • If no, be prepared to explain how
  • Come to the meeting ready
  • to state your opinion and be able to justify it

Suggested Review Strategy
  • Non- Scientific Reviewers
  • 1. Read protocol summary
  • 2. Read Consent Mark it up!
  • 3. Think about one important question before you
    come to the meeting Do I know what this study
    is ALL about?
  • 3. Look at any additional info (ads, scripts,
  • 4. Think about 45 CFR 46.111 do you think the
    findings can be made?
  • 5. jot down comments, thoughts suggestions etc..

Elements of a Protocol
  • Project Description
  • Literature Review
  • Rationale
  • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
  • Methods
  • Risks and Benefits
  • Primary and Secondary Outcomes
  • Statistical Analysis
  • Informed Consent Process or Waiver info

Background and Specific Aims
  • Should contain a cogent summary of previous work
    and rationale for the study
  • May be a cut and paste from the NIH grant
  • References should be included
  • Feel free to make use of the references
  • There should be clear aims and endpoints

Subject Selection and Enrollment
  • How are subjects identified?
  • charts, referrals, PIs own clinic, support
    groups, public records.
  • How, when and by whom are subjects for contacted
    about study?
  • In person? Should be by someone who has reason to
    know confidential medical information.
  • Letters? Letters should be co-signed by the MD
    know to the patient-subject.
  • No cold calls.

Subject Selection and Enrollment
  • Advertising for subjects?
  • Radio scripts, web page content, advertisements,
    etc.. All need IRB approval
  • Content for ads must meet IRB requirements
  • Cannot be coercive
  • No amounts listed

Subject Selection and Enrollment
  • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
  • Should be a concisive list
  • Should include appropriate laboratory parameters
  • Should include appropriate medical exclusions
  • Should not/rarely exclude non English speakers
  • Who obtains consent? Who gives consent?

Short Forms
  • Use when non English speaking subjects are
    unexpectedly eligible for the study.
  • Short form must be written in the subjects
    native language.
  • Needs an attestation of accuracy of translation,
    where no funding is available for certified
  • Impartial witness signature
  • Family member of the subject
  • Member of staff not related to the project
  • Translator
  • Does not require prior IRB review

Study Procedures
  • Should include sufficient detail to ascertain
    what subjects will actually experience while in
  • Time commitment.
  • Setting or site where study procedures occur.
  • Any routine agents to be used such as
  • Consent form with detail in lay terms.

  • A formal sample size is generally necessary.
  • Why does the PI need this many subjects?
  • Are there enough subjects to answer the study
  • How are the data to be analyzed?
  • Just because the PI says it is a pilot study
    doesnt mean they dont need statistics.

Risks and Discomforts
  • Should be listed clearly, quantitatively and in
    order of seriousness.
  • Should include risks of withdrawal from current
  • Non medical risks? Social, legal, financial or
    psychological risks?
  • Is loss of confidentiality a legitimate risk or
  • What about loss of privacy?
  • Is there a complete list of adverse events in the
    drug or device brochure?
  • Any foreseeable but maybe still theoretical risks
    for example tumorigenesis?

  • Compensation is not a benefit.
  • If there are benefits to the individual subjects
    these should be discussed first, then any
    potential benefits to future society.
  • A common error we see is the overstatement of
  • Example of good benefit statement
  • There will be no direct health benefits to you as
    a result of your participation in this study.

Safety Monitoring
  • How are the data to be monitored and by whom?
  • All studies involving more than minimal risk
    require a data and safety monitoring plan.
  • Not all studies require a DSMB but if one is
    necessary who does it involve? Is it independent?
    Should it be?
  • Are there objective criteria for withdrawal of
    subjects when safety is in question?
  • Are there stopping rules?
  • Is there a plan for reporting to the IRB?
  • Does the PI state that NYU SoMs IRB Reportable
    Events guidelines will be followed?

  • Informed Consent Documents
  • NYU SoM IRB standard template
  • Title
  • Purpose
  • of Subjects to participate at NYU and in
    total (multicenter)
  • Description of Procedures
  • Costs
  • Risks
  • Benefits
  • Alternatives
  • Confidentiality including Authorization to use
  • Treatment for injury
  • Voluntary Participation and Withdrawal
  • Permission to contact for future research
  • Contact information for more information or
    question on rights
  • HIV Reporting Disclosure

  • Research that Requires Consent
  • Greater than minimal risk
  • Practicable to obtain consent
  • Identifiers being collected- Authorization
  • Research that May Not Require Consent
  • Minimal Risk
  • Impracticable to obtain consent
  • Anonymous information collected
  • No identifiers collected

Consent Process and Forms
  • Consent is a process and not just a form.
  • The form is the document that captures the
    signature and records the process of agreement to
  • Timing is important Protocol should give us
    details regarding the consent process
  • Once consent is signed, person is considered
    enrolled in study those who do not meet
    inclusion are screen failures

Consent and Assent
  • In NY Adults age 18 and up.
  • Anyone under 18 must have a parent or guardians
    permission (at least one) in order to
  • Sophisticated teens (15-17) can use the adult
    consent form for assent purposes
  • NYU SoM has research assent form templates for
    kids 7-11 and 12-14.
  • Assent may be obtained verbally.
  • Mature Minors A pregnant teen or child.

Mature Minor
  • Nikki is 15 years old, and she has a
    2-month- old daughter. She visits the doctor with
    her daughter and her mother. During the visit,
    the doctor keeps talking to Nikkis mother about
    the baby. The doctor wants the baby to be put on
    an investigational drug. Who can consent?
  • As the parent, Nikki has the right to make all
    treatment decisions for her child including
    research as treatment option. Nikki can seek
    the advice of her own mother in making those
    decisions but Nikki can consent to her
    daughters health care and any research options
    with or without her mothers input.

  • Assent means a childs affirmative agreement to
    participate in research, (45 CFR 46.402(b). The
    child must actively show his or her willingness
    to participate in the research, rather than just
    complying with directions to participate and not
    resisting in any way.
  • When judging whether children are capable of
    assent, the ages, maturity, and psychological
    state of the children involved must be taken into

Assent (cont.)
  • At the IRB meeting if the board determines that
    assent is not required, one of these findings
    must be met
  • (1) capability of some or all of the children is
    so limited that they cannot reasonably be
    consulted or (2) the intervention or procedure
    involved in the research holds out a prospect of
    direct benefit that is important to the health or
    well-being of the children and is available only
    in the context of the research.

Who May Obtain Consent?
  • People can obtain consent for activities
    commensurate with their usual clinical practice
    in medicine
  • Mammogram technologist
  • BA study coordinator
  • RN DPP GTT, lab work
  • RNP DM, study initiation and education for FDA
    approved drugs
  • Licensed MD investigational drugs and device

Surrogate Consent
  • Why cant the subject give consent?
  • NEW YORK law doesnt cover research but we have
    guidance see our web page policies.
  • How do we consider when surrogate consent is
  • Potential/likely benefit is required and/or risk
    must be very small indeed.
  • Who can be a surrogate? Spouse? Children?

Review of Grant Applications
  • An institution shall certify that each grant
    application or proposal for research covered by
    the assurance has been reviewed and approved by
    the IRB.
  • HHS regulations at 45 CFR 46.103(f)

Review of Grant Applications (Continued)
  • In audits, OHRP has found at numerous sites -
    discrepancies between the title, date, and type
    of IRB approval reported on the face page of
    grant applications and the relevant documentation
    in IRB records.
  • OHRP guidance

Review of Grant Applications (Continued)
  • Additionally, OHRP found, in reviewing IRB
    records, and in discussions with IRB members, IRB
    administrators, and research investigators, the
    IRB consistently fails to review the grant
    application for proposed research.
  • OHRP guidance

Medical Devices
  • IDE device FDAs full Monty
  • Category A device Medicare wont pay
  • Category B device Medicare might pay
  • NSR device non significant risk device the IRB
    must actively make this determination
  • SR device generally an implanted device,
    generally will be used to sustain life

And then theres
PHI 18 Identifiers
  • Names/Initials
  • Postal Address
  • Dates (DOB, DOA, DOD)
  • Telephone numbers
  • Fax numbers
  • E-mail address
  • Social Security Number
  • Medical Record Number
  • Health Plan Numbers
  • Account Numbers
  • Certificate/License numbers
  • VIN including license plate numbers
  • Device identifiers
  • Web URLs
  • Internet Protocol address
  • Biometric identifiers
  • Photographs and comparable images
  • Any other unique identifying number,
    characteristic, or code

Waiver of Consent/Authorization
  • Applied for with exemptions or expedited.
  • Provide justification of the following
  • - Minimal Risk Physical and Privacy
  • - Will the waiver adversely affect the rights
    and welfare of the subjects
  • - Is it impracticable to conduct the study
    without the waiver and without the use of the ID
  • - When appropriate, will new information will be
    provided to subjects?
  • - Plan to protect ID and plans to destroy Id or

HIPAA and the IRB
  • At NYU SoM
  • the IRB is the Privacy Board
  • What does that mean?
  • The IRB makes all HIPAA findings
  • The Authorization is combined with the consent
  • What does that mean?
  • Subject sign only one document not two

Waiver Form
  • Identify type of Waiver
  • - Waiver of Authorization
  • - Waiver of Consent
  • - Both
  • Study Information
  • - Brief Description
  • Questions pertaining to Waiver of Authorization
  • - Indicate sources of health information
  • - Describe PHI to be used or disclosed
  • - Persons who have access to PHI

Waiver Form continued
  • Questions pertaining to Waiver of Authorization
  • - Risks to privacy
  • - Plan of protection of identifiers
  • - Impracticable to seek Authorization
  • - Impracticable to do research
  • Questions pertaining to Waiver of Consent
  • - Waiver will not adversely affect the rights
  • - Impracticable to seek Consent
  • - Minimal Risk
  • - If any new info that can be shared will it?


Its Meeting Time
How Our IRB System Works
  • Primary and Secondary Reviewers
  • Assignments made 1 week ahead of meeting
  • Discussion by Full Committee
  • Reviewers lead discussion
  • Everyone contributes
  • Committee Vote
  • Approve
  • Conditional Approval
  • Deferral
  • Disapprove
  • One year maximum approval

At the Meeting
  • Primary reviewer, present a 2-3 minute summary of
    the study
  • Present clear, concise, well defined review
  • Focus on major consent form issues, leave grammar
    and typos to the consent team
  • Assume everyone else has read their assignments
  • Present your recommended disposition
  • Secondary reviewer, add anything that the Primary
    didnt touch on

  • 45 CFR 46.108 IRB functions and operations.
  • In order to fulfill the requirements of this
    policy each IRB shall
  • (b) Except when an expedited review procedure
    is used, review proposed research at convened
    meetings at which a majority of the members of
    the IRB are present, including at least one
    member whose primary concerns are in
    nonscientific areas.

  • Regulations require we meet quorum.
  • We define quorum as more than half the members
  • Since we cant cut anyone in two, this means if
    there are 22 people on the board, we cant start
    the meeting until 12 people are present.
  • We need your expertise.
  • Meetings begin 900 AM Please be on time.

At Convened Meetings
  • A majority of members must be present
  • Nonscientist must be present
  • No nonscientist ---gt no meeting
  • Community member not always nonscientist
  • Meeting must stop whenever number present drops
    below quorum or nonscientist leaves
  • 45 CFR 46.108

At Convened Meetings
  • IRB Meeting Convened without Quorum
  • (Scientist or Nonscientist Absent or a majority
    of member not present)
  • When no scientist or nonscientist member is
    present during the course of the meeting or the
    quorum fails during a meeting (e.g., those with
    conflicts being excused, early departures), the
    IRB may not take further actions or votes until a
    nonscientist member returns.
  • OHRP guidance

At Convened Meetings Review of Protocols
  • Members must receive protocols PRIOR to the
    meeting, with sufficient time to review.
  • Protocols may not be distributed at the meeting
    for review at the meeting.

Convened Meetings Vote
  • We do a show of hands to record vote
  • for, against, abstain
  • Record in minutes (Example)
  • Total 8
  • For 6 Against 1Abstain 1

Convened Meetings Vote (Continued)
  • Total number present is important especially if
    anyone has left the room
  • Must vote separately on each protocol

  • DHHS and FDA regulations 45CFR 46.107(e) 21CFR
    56.107(e) prohibit members from participating in
    IRB reviews if they have a conflict of interest.
  • No IRB may have a member participate in the IRB's
    initial or continuing review of any project in
    which the member has a conflicting interest,
    except to provide information requested by the

NYU SoM Policy for Conflict of Interest Disclosure
  • It is the expectation of the University that IRB
    members will voluntarily recuse themselves from
    review and discussion of research protocols if
    they have a conflict of interest.
  • Members of the IRB must disclose to the IRB Chair
    or Administrator any conflict of interest that
    may arise in the review of research or compliance
    matters for the IRB.
  • Members should not divulge the details of their
    conflict - just that one exists

Risk of Non-Recusal
  • Compromised Objectivity
  • Biased opinion of the merit of the study
  • Biased opinion of whether IRB criteria for
    approval have been met
  • Undue influence on other IRB members
  • Appearance of impropriety loss of public trust

Conflicts of Interest that Require Member Recusal
  • Members who are an investigator or faculty
    sponsor on the project under review, or whose
    spouse or child is an investigator or faculty
  • Members who have any financial interests (i) that
    would reasonably appear to be affected by the
    research or (ii) in entities whose financial
    interests would reasonably appear to be affected
    by the research
  • Members who believe existing circumstances may
    directly affect their objectivity should recuse
    themselves from the review

At Convened Meetings
  • You have a conflicting interest in a proposal
    under review.
  • How should the IRB handle this?

At Convened Meetings
  • Recusal
  • If an IRB member has a conflicting interest in a
    project under review, the member MUST leave the
    room during the discussion and vote of the

  • The member may be present if the IRB requests
    clarifications from the member.
  • Vote is not valid if member does not leave the
  • There can be no exceptions.

  • What if quorum is lost if the member with the
    conflict leaves the room for the discussion and
    vote on the proposal?

  • The proposal must wait for the next convened
    meeting for which there will be a quorum without
    the conflicted member.

Other Responsibilities of the IRB
  • Annual review and re-approval (Continuing Review)
  • Observe, Monitor and Audit
  • Suspend or Terminate Approval

IRB Approved Research what happens next
  • Continuations - usually require full board review
  • Modifications major modifications require full
    board review
  • Reportable events
  • Unanticipated problems causing risk of harm to
    subject or other
  • Unanticipated adverse events (not in original
  • Deviations/violations
  • Patient Complaints
  • Imprisonment of subjects

Continuing Review
  • Reporting on study to date
  • Reality check on how it is really going
  • Any new developments in alternatives?
  • Risks and discomforts havent changed?
  • Benefits havent changed?
  • Any new risks identified?
  • Are the initial statistical assumptions still

Continuing Review
  • Have any/all amendments been incorporated into
    the protocol document?
  • Have any/all amendments been incorporated into
    the consent document?
  • If NIH funded, is the progress report consistent
    with the continuing review report?

Other Commonly Vexing Details
  • Or things that will make you tear your hair out

  • Are there other Approvals that may be required
    prior to IRB Approval?

  • Conflict of Interest Committee (COI)
  • Radiation Safety Committee
  • Institutional Bio-safety Committee
  • Protocol Reviewing and Monitoring Committee
  • Bellevue Hospital Committee
  • BHC Drug and Formulary
  • General Clinical Research Center (GCRC)
  • Approvals are pre-requisite for IRB approval

Study Staff
  • Their qualifications should match their
  • PIs can delegate but must be specific.
  • When someone is assigned as back up, what does
    this mean to us?

International Research
  • OHRP says if the study is federally funded, then
    our rules prevail.
  • Do we know enough about the local situation to
    review the study?
  • Can we get the information if needed?
  • Is there an IRB or ethics committee over there?
  • Can we get things translated?
  • Do we have an expert on this area/population?
  • Can be an IRB member or the PI or a consultant.

  • To review prisoner research IRB must have a
    prisoner advocate on the board we do
  • Must review research with Subpart C regulations
    see reviewers checklist for details
  • If a subject is imprisoned during participation
    in research that was not reviewed and approved to
    include research the IRB must revisit the study

FDA Emergency Use
  • The emergency use provision in the FDA
    regulations is an exemption from prior review and
    approval by the IRB of a single patient use of a
    drug, device, or biologic considered to be
  • The emergency use exemption of an investigational
    drug, biologic or device is permitted only if
    each of the following conditions exists as
    outlined in 21 CFR 56.102(d)
  • A life-threatening or severely debilitating
    situation exists necessitating the use of the
    investigational drug, biologic or device
  • No standard acceptable alternative treatment is
    available and
  • Because of the immediate need to use the drug,
    biologic or device, there is not sufficient time
    to use existing procedures to obtain IRB approval
    for the use.

FDA Emergency Use
  • The FDA regulations do not provide for expedited
    IRB approval in emergency situations.
  • An IRB must either convene or give full board
    approval of the emergency use or, if the
    conditions of 21 CFR 56.102(d) are met and it is
    not possible to convene a quorum within the time
    available, the use may proceed without any IRB

FDA Emergency Use
  • If it is not possible to convene a quorum of the
    IRB within the time available, the IRB may send
    the sponsor a written statement that the IRB is
    aware of the proposed use and considers the use
    to meet the requirements of 21 CFR 56.104(c). 
  • Although this is not an IRB approval, the
    acknowledgement letter has been acceptable to
    manufacturers and has allowed the shipment to

FDA Emergency Use
  • The IRB is required to receive a written report
    on the emergency use within five (5) working
    days. However, this notification should not be
    construed as an IRB approval.  
  • If the subjects consent was not obtained prior
    to the emergency use, the written report must
    include a written determination by a
    non-participating staff physician that the four
    conditions for the use were met.  The report is
    reviewed by the Chair to ensure that the
    emergency use meets the applicable regulations.

FDA Emergency Use Patient Consent
  • The PI is required to obtain informed consent to
    the treatment from the patient or the patients
    legally authorized representative (as specified
    under State law) unless both the Principal
    Investigator and an independent physician certify
    in writing that all of the following conditions
  • The patient is confronted by a life-threatening
    situation necessitating the use of the
    investigational drug, biologic or device
  • Informed consent cannot be obtained due to
    inability to communicate with, or obtain legally
    effective consent from, the patient
  • Time is not sufficient to obtain consent from the
    patients legal representative and
  • No alternative method of approved or generally
    recognized therapy is available that provides an
    equal or greater likelihood of saving the life of
    the patient.
  • If time is not sufficient to obtain the
    determination by an independent physician, the
  • determination should be obtained within 5 working
    days after the use of the investigational
  • article and be reported to the IRB within 5
    working days. 

Treatment IND/IDE and Other Expanded Access To
Investigational Drugs and Devices
Treatment IND
  • Treatment IND 21 CFR 312.34 and 312.35 is a
    mechanism for providing eligible subjects with
    investigational drugs for the treatment of
    serious and life-threatening illnesses for which
    there are no satisfactory alternative treatments.
  • FDA requires the following to issue
  • The drug is intended to treat a serious or
    immediately life-threatening disease
  • There is no comparable or satisfactory
    alternative drug or other therapy available to
    treat that stage of the disease in the intended
    patient population
  • The drug is under investigation in a controlled
    clinical trial under an IND in effect for the
    trial, or all clinical trials have been
    completed and
  • The sponsor of the controlled clinical trial is
    actively pursuing marketing approval of the
    investigational drug with due diligence.

Treatment IND
  • Treatment IND studies require prospective IRB
    review and informed consent.
  • A sponsor may apply for a waiver of local IRB
    review under a treatment IND if it can be shown
    to be in the best interest of the subjects, and
    if a satisfactory alternate mechanism for
    assuring the protection of human subjects is
    available, e.g., review by a central IRB. Such a
    waiver does not apply to the informed consent
  • NYU requires IRB review before a treatment IND is
    used, even in cases where FDA has granted a

Treatment IDE
  • A Treatment IDE is used when a patient does not
    meet the eligibility requirements of any other
    clinical trial, and the device is not approved
    for marketing but is under a clinical
    investigation for a serious or immediately life
    threatening condition.

Treatment IDE
  • The FDA requires the following four conditions
    to consider the use of an investigational device
    under a Treatment IDE
  • The device is intended to treat or diagnose a
    serious or immediately life-threatening disease
    or condition
  • There is no comparable or satisfactory
    alternative device or other therapy available to
    treat or diagnose that stage of the disease or
    condition in the intended patient population
  • The device is under investigation in a controlled
    clinical trial for the same use under an approved
    IDE, or such clinical trials have been completed
  • The sponsor of the investigation is actively
    pursuing marketing approval/clearance of the
    investigational device with due diligence.

Treatment IDE
  • In the case of an immediately life-threatening
    disease, a device may be made available for
    treatment use under this section prior to the
    completion of all clinical trials. For the
    purpose of this section, an "immediately
    life-threatening" disease means a stage of a
    disease in which there is a reasonable likelihood
    that death will occur within a matter of months
    or in which premature death is likely without
    early treatment. For purposes of this section,
    "treatment use" of a device includes the use of a
    device for diagnostic purposes.
  • An investigator interested in a treatment IDE
    should contact the sponsor directly to request
    approval for the use under the sponsors IDE.  An
    investigator-sponsor can contact the FDA
    directly.  After obtaining FDA approval for a
    treatment IDE, the investigator should apply for
    IRB approval by completing the Application for
    Treatment IDE form. 
  • The application should include the protocol, the
    informed consent document, and communication with
    FDA and the sponsor.

  • Compassionate Use Treatment IND
  • Humanitarian Device Exemption
  • Other FDA approved expanded access use for a

History of Protection of Human Subjects
  • Nuremberg Code (1947)
  • Declaration of Helsinki (1964,75,83,89,2000)
  • Beecher Ethics and Clinical Research (1966)
    NEJM 274 (1966) 1354-60

  • During the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials
  • 23 German doctors were charged with crimes
    against humanity for performing medical
    experiments upon concentration camp inmates and
    other living human subjects, without their
    consent, in the course of which experiments the
    defendants committed the murders, brutalities,
    cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other
    inhuman acts.

  • As part of the verdict, the Court enumerated some
    rules for "Permissible Medical Experiments", now
    known as the Nuremberg Code. These rules
  • voluntary consent
  • experiment yielded results for good of society
  • benefits outweigh risks
  • ability of the subject to terminate participation

  • Creation of the Nuremberg Code (1947)
  • Although it did not carry the force of law, the
    Nuremberg Code was the first international
    document which advocated voluntary participation
    and informed consent.
  • 10 principles includes informed consent and
    absence of coercion properly formulated
    scientific experimentation and beneficence
    towards experiment participants.

Declaration of Helsinki
  • At the conclusion of the Nuremberg Trials it was
    decided that as biomedical research efforts
    expanded, there was an international need for a
    more specific code of ethics to review research.
  • This specific code was formulated in 1964 and
    called the Declaration of Helsinki.

Declaration of Helsinki
Recommendations Guiding Medical Doctors in
Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects
Adopted by the 18th World Medical Assembly,
Helsinki, Finland, 1964 and as revised by the
World Medical Assembly in Tokyo, Japan in 1975,
in Venice, Italy in 1983, and in Hong Kong in
1989 and the 48th General Assembly, Somerset
West, Republic of South Africa, October 1996,
52nd General Assembly, Edinburgh, Scotland in
2000, Note clarification on paragraph 29 added by
WMA, Washington 2002, Note clarification on
paragraph 30 added by WMA, Tokyo 2004. Concern
for the interests of the subject must always
prevail over the interests of science and
Declaration of Helsinki
  • In cases of incompetence informed consent should
    be obtained from legal guardian or responsible
  • Some risks justified by potential therapeutic or
    diagnostic value to the patient

  • RIGHT?

Well Known Major Cases Involving Unethical
Research in the U.S.
  • Willowbrook (1956 -1965)
  • Jewish Chronic Disease (1963)
  • USPHS Syphilis Study (aka Tuskegee Study)
  • And More modern day problems.

The Willowbrook Hepatitis Study
  • New York (1963-1966)
  • Conducted on mentally retarded, institutionalized
  • Involved systematically infecting the children
    with hepatitis
  • Parents were coerced into consenting

Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital
  • New York (1963)
  • Cancer Experiments
  • Injection of live cancer cells
  • Hospitalized elderly patients
  • Indigent subjects were injected with live cancer
    cells without their knowledge or consent

US Public Health Services Study of Untreated
Syphilis in the Negro Male
  • American medical research project conducted by
    the U.S. Public Health Service from 1932 to 1972
  • Tuskegee syphilis study
  • examined the natural course of untreated
    syphilis in black American men when there was no
    effective treatment
  • subjects all poor sharecroppers - unknowing
  • subjects not told that they had syphilis - nor
    offered effective treatment once it came

US Government Regulation
  • After problems in US Medical Research were
    highlighted, the US government decided to look
    into government regulation of human
    experimentation and develop ethical guidelines
    for such research.

US Government Response
  • 1973 Kennedy Hearings
  • Quality of Health Care Human
  • 1974 National Research Act
  • Established the National Commission for the
  • Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
  • Behavioral Research
  • Required IRBs at institutions receiving federal
  • support for human subjects research

National Research Act 1974
  • Established the National Commission for the
    Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and
    Behavioral Research (i.e., The National
  • Initially met over a four-day period in 1976
  • Met at the Smithsonian Institute's Belmont
    Conference Center (thus The Belmont Report)
  • Monthly deliberations over the next four years
  • Resulted in The Belmont Report

Respect for Persons informed consent , respect
for privacy

Beneficence(nonmalficence) first do no harm, good
research design, competent investigators,
favorable risk/benefit analysis maximize
benefits, minimize risks.
Justice equitable selection of subjects
appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The Federal Government and the IRB
Office of Human Research Protection
21 CFR 50,56
45 CFR 46
Institutional Review Board
Regulations and Guidelines
  • HHS Regulations 45 CFR Part 46
  • FDA CFR 21 Parts 50, 56, 312, 812
  • ICH Good Clinical Practice
  • The regulations are open to interpretation
  • 45 CFR 46, OHRP is the interpreter
  • 21 CFR and it subparts are interpreted by the FDA

  • Three subparts under HHS regulations
  • Subpart B Fetus, Pregnant Women, In Vitro and
    neonates of uncertain viability
  • Subpart C - Prisoners
  • Subpart D Children
  • Subparts under FDA regulations
  • Subpart D - Children

Modern Day Problems
  • The public, congress, and universities react to
  • Ethical and scientific mistakes
  • September 1999, University of Pennsylvania,
    18-yearold volunteer named Jesse Gelsinger died
    from drugs administered as part of a gene therapy
  • June 2001, Johns Hopkins, Ellen Roche, a
    24-year-old volunteer, died one month after
    inhaling an unapproved drug as part of a study
    into the causes of asthma.

The Belmont Report as a Review Tool
Belmont Principles
  • Are general prescriptive judgments (Other
    principles may also be relevant)
  • Cannot always be applied so as to resolve beyond
    dispute particular ethical problems
  • But the objective is to provide an analytical
    framework that will guide the resolution of
    ethical problems arising from research involving
    human subjects.

The Belmont Report
  • Boundaries Between Practice and Research
  • IRB must determine that the researcher (and
    through informed consent, the subject)
    distinguishes practice from experiment in both
    social science and medical science research

The Belmont Report
  • Basic Ethical Principles
  • Respect for Persons
  • Individual autonomy
  • Protection of individuals with reduced autonomy
  • Beneficence
  • Maximize benefits and minimize harms
  • Justice
  • Equitable distribution of research costs and

Respect for Persons
  • Treat individuals as autonomous agents
  • Do not use people as means to an end
  • Allow people to choose for themselves
  • Give extra protection to those with limited

  • Acts of kindness or charity that go beyond duty
  • Obligations derived from beneficence
  • Do no harm
  • Prevent harm
  • Prevent evil
  • Promote good

  • Treat people fairly
  • Fair sharing of burdens and benefits of research
  • Distinguish procedural justice from distributive

IRB Members can use the Belmont as tool when
reviewing and discussing research consider
Investigator Conflicts of Interest
  • All PIs must be in compliance with the NYU SoM
  • IRB can and must flag any conflicts we become
    aware of during our reviews.
  • IRB can refer PIs to COIC and or Research
    Compliance Office.

Protocol Design Respect for Persons
  • How can the consent process maximize autonomy?
  • How can the protocol maximize autonomy?
  • What additional protections can be in place for
    protected populations?
  • How can this study maximally protect subject

Protocol Design Beneficence
  • Can the research design be improved to enhance
    safety and benefit ?
  • What are the risks? How can they be minimized?
  • What are the benefits? How can they be maximized?

Protocol Design Justice
  • How can you ensure that recruitment targets the
    population that will benefit from the research?
  • How can you ensure that recruitment will not
    unfairly target a population?
  • (avoid exploitation of population of
  • How can the inclusion/exclusion criteria be made

General Pointers/considerations
  • The committee system exists to keep you out of
    the hot seat
  • We do not post IRB member rosters but it is
    public information and researchers, sponsors and
    anyone else can get this information
  • We do not post nor do we release reviewer
  • Individuals vote by name is not recorded
  • You may contact the PI prior to the meeting if
    you wish OR you can let the IRB office be the
    middle man at your discretion entirely.

IRB Review As Peer Review
  • Strives for consistency but different reviewers
    can and do have different opinions.
  • Staff meets with the IRB chair in order to create
    and communicate consistent approaches,