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

2

Why do we have IRBs?

Why do we have federal research

regulations?

3

Nazi “experiments”

1. Unacceptable risk

2. No consent

3. Use of vulnerable subjects

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

5

Tuskegee study

1968 Whistleblower Peter Buxtun

1969 CDC local chapters of AMA and

NMA reaffirm support,

1970 News coverage

6

Tuskegee study

1974 DHEW issues regulations on

funded research

1974 Tuskegee Benefit Program

7

Fundamental tension in research

Primary goal is generalizable

knowledge, benefit to society

Participants face risks but benefit to

others

8

Ethical violations in Tuskegee

1. Inappropriate risk / benefit ratio

2. Lack of informed and voluntary

consent

3. Targeting of vulnerable population

9

Regulations respond to Tuskegee

1. Beneficence Risks must be acceptable Risks must be minimized

2. Respect for persons Informed and voluntary consent

10

Regulations respond to Tuskegee

3. Justice Equitable selection of subjects Protections for vulnerable subjects

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

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

13

Study 1: epidemiology of hepatitis C

Prospective cohort study of incidence

of hepatitis C and risk factors Blood draws Questionnaires

14


Target population? Injection drug users Commercial sex workers

Vulnerable populations at higher risk

need special protection

15


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)

16


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

relationships Economic harm: loss of employment

17


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

18


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

19


Cannot guarantee absolute

confidentiality Reporting of communicable diseases Audits by funders

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

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

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

24

Question for audience

Would repeat angiography be indicated

in clinical care after starting patient on

lipid-lowering drug?

25


Conceivable that detect L main

stenosis?

26


Do you regard benefit / risk balance as

acceptable?

27

Study 2: What are benefits of study?

Direct benefits intended by study

design Drug to lower LDL, monitoring of LDL ? Angiography

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

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

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?

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

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

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

34

In Study 2

Are risks minimized? Noninvasive means to assess progression of

vascular occlusion• CT angiography

• Doppler studies of carotid arteries

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?

36


Do you regard benefit / risk balance as

acceptable?

37

Outcome of Study 2

Endpoint was progression of carotid

disease evaluated by Doppler

Study was negative study Was short-term benefit realistic?

39

Looking ahead

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

biological specimens

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

41

Practical IRB tips on 8/14

Bring your questions!

1 irb review and assessment of risks / benefits bernard lo, m.d. july 31, 2008

Documents