AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESEARCH 3/01/2016

Similar documents
Supersedes Document Dated: 7/7/11. SOP: RR 401 Version No.: 07 Version Date: 9/8/15 EXPEDITED REVIEW 1. POLICY

EXPEDITED REVIEW. Terms used in this policy, but not defined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Glossary.

CONTINUING REVIEW 3/7/2016

7.0 DEVIATION and EXCEPTION of a PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROTOCOL

Standard Operating Policy and Procedures (SOPP) 3:

SOP 407: PROTOCOL DEVIATIONS AND UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS

Yale University Human Research Protection Program

SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD CONTINUING REVIEW AND REAPPROVAL OF RESEARCH

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD PROCEDURES FOR FULL BOARD REVIEW

I. Summary. II. Responsibilities

Reporting an Unanticipated Problem Involving Risks to Subjects or Others (UPIRTSO) to the IRB

Effective Date Revisions Date Review by the Convened Institutional Review Board

SOP 5.06 Full Committee Review: Initial IRB Review

Initial Review. Approved By: Michele Kennett, JD, MSN, LLM Associate Vice Chancellor for Research. Table of Contents

Baptist Health Institutional Review Board. Study Closure Report (Expedited Review) IRB #: Study Title:

Michigan State University Human Research Protection Program

To assure knowledge and compliance by documenting the continuing review procedure of approved projects for the IRB.

To assure knowledge and compliance by documenting the annual administrative review and continuing IRB review of non-exempt projects for the IRB.

Issue in IRB Approvals:

Human Research Protection Program Policy

OHRP Guidance on Written IRB Procedures

Children s Hospital of Philadelphia Committees for the Protection of Human Subjects Policies and Procedures Continuing Review of Approved Research

SOP #2-2 Version #1 Date First Effective: December 14, Page 1 of 6

Investigator Manual. If you have questions about whether an activity requires IRB review, contact the IRB Office.

Tuesday, May 15, Please be sure to sign in and take copies of each handout.

UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD CONTINUING REVIEW OF RESEARCH

SOP 801: Investigator Qualifications and Responsibilities

Effective Date: January 16, 2012 Policy Number: MHC_RP0107. Revised Date: November 2, 2015 Oversight Level: Corporate

CONTINUING REVIEW OF APPROVED IRB PROTOCOLS

Signature Date Date First Effective: Signature Date Revision Date:

Arkansas Tech University Institutional Review Board

Research Involving Human Subjects: AA 110.7

IRB Chair Responsibilities

NONCOMPLIANCE. 1. Overview

Title: EXPEDITED IRB REVIEW OF HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION PROGRAM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES 02 06/30/10 08/01/07 1 OF 6

CUNY HRPP Policy: Suspension or Termination of Human Subject Research

IRB MEETING ADMINISTRATION

UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA Institutional Review Board

EMERGENCY USE 03/02/2016

Independent Ethics Committees

Study Management SM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE FOR Interactions with the Institutional Review Board (IRB)

I. Summary. II. Responsibilities

IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY Institutional Review Board. Policy on IRB Review of Protocol Deviations and Noncompliance for Non-exempt Research

Children s Hospital of Philadelphia Committees for the Protection of Human Subjects Policies and Procedures. IRB Review Processes

Section 8. Continuing Review of Ongoing IRB-Approved Research (Revised 7/1/10)

Administrative Hold, Suspension, or Termination of IRB Approval

DOCUMENTATION OF IRB DISCUSSIONS AND DECISIONS ( IRB MINUTES)

Procedure Department: HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTIONS PROGRAM Policy Number: II.B.1

University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. Reliance Agreement Guidance: Post-Approval Submissions

Human Research Protections Program Medical College of Wisconsin and Froedtert Memorial Lutheran Hospital

SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION PROGRAM STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Quick Reference Manual For New DUHS IRB Members

1. Review and approval of the consent document is a responsibility that FDA assigns to the IRB with jurisdiction

Review of Research by the Convened IRB

THE DUHS IRB REVIEW PROCESS 8/13/2014

Minot State University Institutional Review Board ANNUAL UPDATE/REVISION/PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT

HSPP Standard Operating Procedures

Institutional Review Board Standard Operating Procedure. Suspension and Termination of IRB Approval

IRB Minutes Quality Improvement Assessment

Policy Number: 42 Title: Investigational Devices Date of Last Revision: 06/12/2008; 07/22/2010; 05/29/2013; 05/01/2016; 10/16/2018

The IRB reviews and monitors human subjects research conducted by Columbia College Chicago faculty, staff, and students.

Human Subjects in Research Review and Monitoring Form. Not applicable

HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS RESEARCH NETWORK

IRB-REQUIRED INVESTIGATOR ACTIONS

Version 1. Submission Guide and Policies

University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. Reliance Agreement Guidance: How to Apply for External IRB Review

Wayne State University Institutional Review Board

Florida State University IRB Standard Operational Procedures

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROCEDURES

Signature Date Date First Effective: Signature Date Revision Date: 07/18/2011

University of Iowa External/Central IRB Reliance Process Standard Operating Procedure (SOP)

Lapse in IRB Approval

CONTINUING REVIEW CRITERIA FOR RENEWAL

Initial Review of Research Policy and Procedure

CUNY HRPP Procedures: Multisite Non-Exempt Human Subjects Research

RESEARCH SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Guidance for IRBs, Clinical Investigators, and Sponsors IRB Continuing Review after Clinical Investigation Approval

Submitting Continuing Reviews and/or Amendments to the IRB

To describe the policy and procedures for initial and continuing review by the Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Yale University Institutional Review Boards

Collaborative Research

21 CFR Part 56 - Institutional Review Boards

The Children s Hospital of Philadelphia Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects Policies and Procedures. Cooperative Agreements

CONTINUING REVIEW CRITERIA FOR RENEWAL

Institutional Review Board (IRB) Policies and Procedures Manual

Choose the quarter in which the submission was reviewed and approved: Please provide the following information about the minutes being reivewed:

Institutional Review Board Investigator Handbook

Signature Date Date First Effective: Signature Date Revision Date: 05/14/2014

Pepperdine University eprotocol - IRB Student Investigator User Guide

INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) PROCEDURES

Presented by Alena Filip IRB Coordinator Office of Research San Jose State University

University of Cincinnati. Radiation Safety Committee Operations Guidelines Statement of Policy (RSC Guidelines) RSC Guidelines (revision 5)

Date Effective 4/21/2008 Identification

University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. Reliance Agreement Guidance: Penn as Central IRB FAQ

POLICY NO EXEMPT RESEARCH... 4 POLICY NO DISCLOSURE OF RESEARCH LAB TEST RESULTS... 5

SOP 903: HRPP AND NON-COMPLIANCE

AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE

Nova Southeastern University Institutional Review Board Policies and Procedures

Transcription:

DUKE UNIVERSITY HEALTH SYSTEM Human Research Protection Program AMENDMENTS TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED RESEARCH 3/01/2016 The Duke University Health System Institutional Review Board (DUHS IRB) requires that principal investigators promptly report to the IRB proposed changes in a previously approved research activity. Changes in approved research, including changes to informed consent documents, during the period for which IRB approval has already been given, may not be initiated without IRB review and approval except when necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject (45 CFR 46.103(b)(4)(iii) and 21 CFR 56.108(a)(3)-(4)). It is the policy of the DUHS IRB to review all requests for amendments to previously approved research to determine if a change in the risk/benefit ratio of the study has occurred. Definitions 1. Amendment: Any change to an IRB-approved study protocol regardless of the level of review it receives initially. 2. Expeditable Amendment: A proposed change in research-related activities that does not materially affect an assessment of the risks and benefits of the study and does not substantially change the specific aims or design of the study; a minor change to previously approved research. 3. Non-Expeditable Amendment: A proposed change in research-related activities that materially affects an assessment of the risks and benefits of the study or substantially changes the specific aims or design of the study. 4. Minimal risk means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the 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 [45 CFR 46.102(i) and 21 CFR 56.102(i)]. In practice, the DUHS IRB interprets this definition of minimal risk as the risk encountered by a healthy person in the course of normal daily living. This DUHS practice is also consistent with the definition of minimal risk set forth in 45 CFR 46.303(d). 5. Minor change: A change is minor if it does not represent a material change in the research, i.e., (a) the change does not adversely alter the overall risk/benefit ratio; (b) the change will not potentially adversely affect the willingness of current participants to remain in the study or the willingness of 1

potential participants to enroll in the study; (c) the change will not diminish the scientific validity of the study, (d) any added revision or procedure involves no more than minimal risk to subjects, and (e) any added procedure that falls into one of the categories (1)-(7) of research that can be reviewed using the expedited procedure. Note: An increase in blood draw volume that could otherwise be expedited as category 2 should also be examined against the already approved blood draw volume to confirm that the new total for adults does not exceed 5 ml/kg in any one 24 hour period, and 7 ml/kg in any eight week period and for children does not exceed 3 ml/kg in any 24 hour period, and 7 ml/kg in any eight week period. Increases above these limits must be specifically justified in the research protocol and approved by a convened IRB. Expeditable Amendments For research previously approved by a convened IRB, the IRB may use the expedited review procedure to review minor changes in previously approved research. The IRB may also use the expedited review procedure to review any change to research previously approved using the expedited procedure, as long as the change meets the above definition of minor. Please refer to the HRPP policy titled Expedited Review Procedure. Examples of amendments that may be reviewed using the expedited procedure include: The addition of research activities that would be considered exempt or eligible for expedited review if considered independent from the main research protocol; An increase or decrease in the proposed enrollment of research subjects without prolonging any subject s period of exposure to study risks that are more than minimal, or without adversely affecting the study design; Narrowing the range of the inclusion criteria; Broadening the range of the exclusion criteria; Alterations in the dosage form (e.g., tablet to capsule or oral liquid) of an administered drug, provided the dose and route of administration remain constant; Decreasing the number or volume of biological sample collections, provided that such a change does not affect the collection of information related to safety evaluations; An increase in the length of confinement or number of study visits for the purpose of increased safety monitoring; A decrease in the length of confinement or number of study visits, provided that such a decrease does not affect the collection of information related to safety evaluations; 2

Alterations in human research participant payment or liberalization of the payment schedule with proper justification; Changes to improve the clarity of statements or to correct typographical errors, provided that such a change does not alter the content or intent of the statement; The addition or deletion of key personnel; this is done with a personnel change request rather than a regular amendment. For a change in PI or co-pi, a personnel change request is needed and a regular amendment is needed to revise study documents. The addition of study sites (which may require a Federal Wide Assurance (FWA) and appropriate IRB approval) or the deletion of study sites. Non-Expeditable Amendments For a proposed change in a research study that is not minor, could possibly introduce increased risk to study participants, or might adversely affect the willingness of current participants to remain in the study, the IRB must review and approve changes at a convened meeting before changes can be implemented. Examples of amendments not eligible for review using the expedited procedure may include but are not limited to: The addition to the informed consent document of a description of serious unexpected adverse events or other risks; Broadening the range of inclusion criteria; Narrowing the range of exclusion criteria; Alterations in the dosage or the route of administration of a drug; Extending the duration of exposure to the test material or intervention; The deletion of laboratory tests, monitoring procedures, or study visits directed at the collection of information for safety evaluations; or Changes, which, in the opinion of the IRB Chair/designee, do not meet the criteria or intent of a minor modification. Re-consent/Notification of Participants The IRB may decide that the changes to the research activities require a change in the informed consent documents and therefore warrant re-consenting of currently enrolled participants or notification of participants who have completed research interventions. Change to Research-Related Injury Language When a proposed change in a study involves a revision to the research-related injury language in the consent form(s), such change requires review by the Office of Corporate Research Collaborations (OCRC) to ensure consistency with the relevant language in the study s legal contract. For amendments that involve such changes, the Board Specialist notifies the appropriate individual in OCRC 3

by email to request review against the contract language. A copy of the email is uploaded into the history section of the amendment. The amendment is then submitted for review with a comment stating pending clearance from OCRC. If the OCRC representative logs a comment in the history of the amendment stating that the proposed change is consistent with the relevant legal contract language, the amendment can be approved. If the OCRC representative logs a comment in the history of the amendment stating the revised language is inconsistent with the relevant legal contract language, the correct language will be attached to the logged comment, and the amendment will be approved pending modifications. The modification will then be sent to the study team. Exempt Research Any proposed or anticipated changes in a study that was previously declared exempt from IRB review must be submitted to the IRB for approval prior to initiation of the change. The proposed amendment will then be evaluated for appropriate IRB review. Investigator Responsibilities Investigators must submit the exact text of an amendment or other revision to the protocol and any proposed changes to the consent documents or other study documents to the IRB. If changes are being made to the IRB study summary and/or consent form(s), investigators must submit BOTH a Track Changes version and a clean version of each affected document. Submitting the Track Changes version of a document will enable the IRB to quickly see both deletions and additions that are being made to either the IRB study summary and/or consent form(s). Investigators should attach a list of changes and the relevant page number(s) where changes have been made to the sponsor s protocol, investigator s brochure, questionnaires, and/or other documents. The Investigator may make a modification to research activities to avoid an immediate hazard to the participant, and may do so without prior IRB approval, but must report this via the eirb within 10 business days as a Protocol Deviation/Violation. Using the eirb to Submit an Amendment All amendments must be created and submitted using the eirb. A study must be approved before it can be amended. A previous amendment must be approved before another can be created or submitted. IRB Responsibilities Amendments, as they are received by the IRB Office, will be triaged by the board specialists based on whether they are considered expeditable or non- 4

expeditable. At any time, the board specialist may consult with the IRB Chair or Executive Director, or designee (the reviewer ) for assistance in determining the type of review that is required to process the amendment. The reviewer may conduct expedited review of amendments that meet the definition of a minor change to previously approved research. See Expedited Review Procedure above for details. When a proposed change in a research study represents a non-expeditable amendment, the convened IRB must review and approve changes. A primary reviewer will be assigned and the amendment will be placed on the next available Meeting agenda. In preparation for the meeting, all attending board members are notified by email of their assigned amendment. All board members are sent an e-mail with all items that will be presented at the meeting. Each board member has access to the eirb meeting agenda and full study documents prior to the meeting, as called for by the policy on Conduct of a Convened Meeting of the DUHS Institutional Review Board, with reference to amendments (business items). In deciding whether to approve the research, the convened board uses the Primary Reviewer Checklist for Amendments and must decide as a board that the regulatory criteria for approval are met. The convened board must determine whether re-consenting of currently enrolled participants is necessary and whether participants who have completed research involvement who might be affected should be re-contacted and provided with additional information. This determination should be based on new information regarding a change in the risk-benefit assessment that might possibly affect the participant s decision to continue with the research activities. The IRB must approve any proposed changes to the consent form language. The IRB has a range of possible actions it may take for an amendment: Approve Modifications required Defer for more information Disapprove Following the IRB meeting, the IRB Writer and Board Specialist will prepare a modification or approval notice, as applicable, denoting the IRB s findings. This will be forwarded to the Chair or his/her designee for signature, then forwarded to the Principal Investigator, via the eirb. References: 21 CFR 56.110(b)(2) 45 CFR 46.110(b)(2) 5

21 CFR 56.108(a)(3) and (4) 45 CFR 46.103(b)(4)(iii) Previous Version Date(s): 08/13/08, 12/30/08, 5/29/2011 6