Abstract
In accordance with the recent revision of the Common Rule (Subpart A of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s regulations for the protection of human subjects in research at 45 CFR 46), the use of single IRB has become mandatory for cooperative research in the U.S. Thus, interest has grown in operating alternative IRB models, including central IRBs and/or joint IRBs. However, since the single IRB mandate has risks as well as benefits, such revision should be carefully considered before adopting it. Accordingly, this study examined the institutional changes and progress of the U.S. research ethics review system, the efforts that have been made to avoid inefficiencies caused by duplicate reviews for multi-center cooperative research, and the single IRBrelated policies and regulations that have been enacted or revised thereafter. Additionally, this study compared the differences between the regulations and guidelines in the Korean Good Clinical Practice (KGCP) and those in the Bioethics and Safety Act. On the basis of this examination, it is argued that before a single IRB review model is adopted in Korea, it is necessary for all relevant parties to conduct a full review of the current responsibilities of researchers and institutions under existing laws and regulations and to determine how those responsibilities would be shared in the event of a single IRB review model.
Publisher
The Korean Society for Medical Ethics
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference46 articles.
1. OHRP. Subpart A of 45 CFR Part 46 : Basic HHS Policy for protections of Human Subjects. Available from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sites/default/files/revised-common-rule-reg-text-unofficial-2018-requirements.pdf [cited 2021 Jun 10]
2. Winkler SJ, Witte E, Bierer BE. The Harvard Catalyst Common Reciprocal IRB Reliance Agreement : An Innovative Approach to Multisite IRB Review and Oversight. Clinical and Translational Science 2015 ; 8(1) : 57. 10.1111/cts.12202 25196592 PMC4329026
3. Jester PM, Tilden SJ, Li Y, et al. Regulatory challenges: Lessons from recent West Nile virus trials in the United States. Contemporary Clinical Trials 2006 ; 27 : 254?259. 10.1016/j.cct.2006.02.004 16603417
4. Helfand BT, Mongiu AK, Roehrborn CG, et al. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter randomized, controlled surgical trial. Journal Of Urological Surgery 2009 ; 181 : 2674?2679. 10.1016/j.juro.2009.02.032 19375101 PMC4720253
5. Stark AR, Tyson JE, Hibberd PL. Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial. Journal of Perinatology 2010 ; 30 : 163?169. 10.1038/jp.2009.157 19798046 PMC2924664