1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

41
1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008

Transcript of 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

Page 1: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

1

IRB review andassessment of risks / benefits

Bernard Lo, M.D.

July 31, 2008

Page 2: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

2

Why do we have IRBs?

Why do we have federal research

regulations?

Page 3: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

3

Nazi “experiments”

1. Unacceptable risk

2. No consent

3. Use of vulnerable subjects

Page 4: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

4

Tuskegee study

1932 Study started

1936 Journal told that local MDs asked

not to treat subjects

1940 Subjects not treated in military

1947 USPHS Rapid Treatment Centers

Page 5: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

5

Tuskegee study

1968 Whistleblower Peter Buxtun

1969 CDC local chapters of AMA and

NMA reaffirm support,

1970 News coverage

Page 6: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

6

Tuskegee study

1974 DHEW issues regulations on

funded research

1974 Tuskegee Benefit Program

Page 7: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

7

Fundamental tension in research

Primary goal is generalizable

knowledge, benefit to society

Participants face risks but benefit to

others

Page 8: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

8

Ethical violations in Tuskegee

1. Inappropriate risk / benefit ratio

2. Lack of informed and voluntary

consent

3. Targeting of vulnerable population

Page 9: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

9

Regulations respond to Tuskegee

1. Beneficence Risks must be acceptable Risks must be minimized

2. Respect for persons Informed and voluntary consent

Page 10: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

10

Regulations respond to Tuskegee

3. Justice Equitable selection of subjects Protections for vulnerable subjects

Page 11: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

11

Federal requirements for research

Review by IRB Independent of investigators

Risks / benefits acceptable Risks must be minimized

• Must understand science

Include psychosocial risks• Confidentiality

Page 12: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

12

Federal requirements for research

Informed and voluntary consent Concerns about undue inducement if

payment Exceptions to consent

• Not capable of consent (children, adults who lack decision-making capacity)

• Impracticable to obtain consent

Page 13: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

13

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

Prospective cohort study of incidence

of hepatitis C and risk factors Blood draws Questionnaires

Page 14: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

14

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

Target population? Injection drug users Commercial sex workers

Vulnerable populations at higher risk

need special protection

Page 15: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

15

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

Medical risks minimal

Physical risks of questionnaires tiny

Psychosocial risks considerable Highly sensitive data

• Alcohol and substance abuse• Sexual behaviors, STDs, HIV• Illegal activities: sex for $, IDU• (Psychiatric illness)

Page 16: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

16

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

If confidentiality breached Legal risk: illegal activities Social harm: stigma, disruption of

relationships Economic harm: loss of employment

Page 17: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

17

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

How to minimize risks? Staff training Use coded or de-identified data Data security

Page 18: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

18

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

How to minimize risks? Data security

• Do not store identified data on laptops, removable devices

• Encryption Certificate of confidentiality

Inform participants of risk during

consent process

Page 19: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

19

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

Cannot guarantee absolute

confidentiality Reporting of communicable diseases Audits by funders

Page 20: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

20

Page 21: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

21

Study 2: cholesterol-lowering drug

Phase II RCT to study whether new

drug to lower LDL prevents

progression of coronary disease Compare to standard statin Known to lower LDL more than statins

Page 22: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

22

Study 2: cholesterol-lowering drug

Primary endpoint is progression of

CAD on follow-up angiography

compared to baseline angiography

Secondary endpoints Combined cardiac death + MI Ischemia on exercise nuclear imaging

Page 23: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

23

Study 2: context

Drug already approved by FDA on

basis of LDL reduction

Is advantage in vascular progression a

surrogate endpoint? More power to detect surrogate endpoint

than clinical endpoint

Page 24: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

24

Question for audience

Would repeat angiography be indicated

in clinical care after starting patient on

lipid-lowering drug?

Page 25: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

25

Question for audience

Conceivable that detect L main

stenosis?

Page 26: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

26

Question for audience

Do you regard benefit / risk balance as

acceptable?

Page 27: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

27

Study 2: What are benefits of study?

Direct benefits intended by study

design Drug to lower LDL, monitoring of LDL ? Angiography

Page 28: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

28

Study 2: What are benefits of study?

Collateral benefits of being in study,

independent of research intervention Education about CAD risk Attention of staff Payment for participation

• May not be considered by IRB as benefit

Page 29: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

29

Study 2: What are risks of study?

Procedures that offer prospect direct

benefit Adverse effects of study drug

Procedures to answer research

question Risks of angiography

Page 30: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

30

Questions regarding Study 2

May invasive procedures not indicated

in clinical care be allowed in research?

How can risks and benefits of complex

study be combined into overall

assessment?

Page 31: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

31

For interventions that offer prospect of direct benefit

Greater level of risk acceptable than for

interventions solely for research

Balance of benefits / burdens should

be comparable to standard care

Page 32: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

32

For interventions that offer no prospect of direct benefit

May not justify by benefits of study

drug Study drug might reduce cardiac events

• May not justify by collateral benefits

Page 33: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

33

For interventions that offer no prospect of direct benefit

Risks must be reasonable compared to

potential knowledge gained

Risks must be minimized consistent

with valid research design

Page 34: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

34

In Study 2

Are risks minimized? Noninvasive means to assess progression of

vascular occlusion• CT angiography

• Doppler studies of carotid arteries

Page 35: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

35

In Study 2

What is potential knowledge gained? Is greater reduction in LDL clinically

meaningful?• What will this study add to what is already

known?

Page 36: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

36

Question for audience

Do you regard benefit / risk balance as

acceptable?

Page 37: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

37

Outcome of Study 2

Endpoint was progression of carotid

disease evaluated by Doppler

Study was negative study Was short-term benefit realistic?

Page 38: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

38

Page 39: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

39

Looking ahead

When is IRB review not necessary? Not research Certain survey, interview research Certain research with existing data and

biological specimens

Page 40: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

40

Looking ahead

When may IRB review be expedited? Minimal risk in technical sense On list approved by DHHS

• Venipuncture

• Noninvasive• Not XRs

• Minor changes

• Continuing review

Page 41: 1 IRB review and assessment of risks / benefits Bernard Lo, M.D. July 31, 2008.

41

Practical IRB tips on 8/14

Bring your questions!