key: cord-1005349-8edqnxrs authors: Tusino, Silvia; Furfaro, Maria title: Rethinking the role of Research Ethics Committees in the light of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials and the COVID‐19 pandemic date: 2021-05-05 journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14871 sha: e5cc3c1987ac7df641856c838b39b79003e427f5 doc_id: 1005349 cord_uid: 8edqnxrs Research Ethics Committees (RECs)—or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), as they are known in the US—were created about 50 years ago to independently assess the ethical acceptability of research projects involving human subjects, their fundamental role being the protection of the dignity and rights of research participants. In this paper we develop some critical reflections about the current situation of RECs. Our starting point is the definition of the role they should ideally play, a role that should necessarily include a collaborative approach and the focus on the ethics component of the review. This ideal is unfortunately quite far from reality: inadequacies in the functioning of RECs have been discussed for decades, along with reform proposals. Both in the US and in the European Union (EU), reforms that aim at the centralization of the review process were recently approved. Even though these reforms were needed, they nonetheless raise concerns. We focus on two such concerns, related in particular to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014: the risk of narrowing the scope of the ethics review and that of disregarding the local context. We argue that the COVID‐19 pandemic paved the way for the transition towards the centralized model and that an analysis of its impact on the research review process could provide some interesting insights into possible shortcomings of this new model. We conclude by identifying three objectives that define the role of a REC, objectives that any reform should preserve. Committees (RECs) 9 to distinguish them from Healthcare Ethics Committees (HECs). In this paper we will use just the denomination "RECs", which we prefer because it highlights the ethical focus of the committee review, a focus we deem essential. The ultimate goal of RECs is to ensure that research conforms to ethical and legal standards and, in particular, that participants' rights are protected. Due to their role, RECs find themselves in the unique position of being at the intersection of the main stakeholders involved in research: participants, healthcare professionals, investigators, research institutions, contract research organizations (CROs), sponsors, regulatory agencies. However, if we look at how they actually operate, the enormous potential of RECs is often not met, and the risk that they end up being merely bureaucratic boards is real. In this paper we develop some critical reflections about the current situation of RECs. We first present two fundamental elements that in our view should define the role RECs have to play if they want to fulfil their ethical task. Then we briefly discuss some of the main critiques and complaints raised against them in the past decades: such critiques and complaints explain the recurrent calls for reforming the ethics review system. Indeed, both in the US and in the EU some reforms have recently been approved. However, these reforms raise serious concerns because, despite tackling some of the limitations of the current situation, they could increase the gap between the reality of RECs and the role they should ideally play. Interestingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has given us a glimpse of what the future could be like: by presenting an example of how the ethics review system of research protocols has changed during the emergency, we aim to identify some pros and cons of a centralized review mechanism. We conclude by proposing three objectives that essentially define the role of a REC and that any reform should preserve. The fact that REC approval is necessary to conduct research and the great amount of paperwork related to the review procedure are probably the main factors contributing to the widespread image of RECs as "research courts" delivering sentences and fulfilling a merely bureaucratic task. 10 However, this is not the role RECs should play in the research field. We argue that, if they want to be faithful to their original mandate, RECs should necessarily aim at realizing two objectives in particular: practising a collaborative approach and focusing on the ethics component of the review. Firstly, notwithstanding its independence, the REC should be considered more as a partner and a supporter in the research process rather than a judge and an obstacle. 11 As stated by the Declaration of Helsinki (Art. 23), the purpose of the review process is to offer "comment" and "guidance", in addition to approval. The same view on the desirability of cooperation between investigators and RECs is shared by the US National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (henceforth, "National Commission") that, in its report on IRBs, describes their role as that of sharing with investigators the responsibility of determining whether research projects fulfil ethical standards and of "working closely with investigators to assure that the rights and welfare of human subjects are protected and, at the same time, that the application of policies is fair to the investigators". 12 This explains also why some guidelines 9 and scholars 13 highlight the importance of assessing first and foremost the social value of research: without the potential of improving health care, a research project lacks the basic ground for ethical justification. As the National Commission states: "The ethical conduct of research involving human subjects requires a balancing of society's interests in protecting the rights of the subjects and in developing knowledge that can benefit the subjects or society as a whole". 12(p1) This balance should be the ultimate purpose of the work of RECs: a task that clearly goes far beyond a purely formal check that legal requirements are met. Inadequacies and failures in the functioning of RECs have been discussed for decades, along with reform proposals. 14 The debated issues are countless. At one level, the discussion revolves around concrete obstacles to RECs' good performance, like the fact that they are often understaffed and overworked and lack training in research ethics. 15 These are real problems that seriously undermine the capability of RECs to adequately perform their tasks, which include not only the review of research proposals, but also the monitoring of approved studies and the ongoing ethics education of their members. At another level, the focus is on the shortcomings of the actual review system, in particular the slowness of the review process and the inconsistencies in the evaluations by different RECs, with regard both to the number and the type of revisions they require. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] These inefficiencies explain the perception, widespread among researchers, of the overview system as a barrier to scientific progress rather than a constructive process necessary to protect participants' rights and well-being. 21 A further matter of concern is the lack of structured and systematic evaluation of the REC system and the absence of data to perform an adequate assessment of the performance of RECs. 16, 22, 23 Moreover, many contributions underline the importance of considering how changes in clinical research affect the ethics review system and how this system should change as well to remain effective even in the most recent research scenarios: can the local REC model appraised by the National Commission still work for studies that are increasingly sponsor-driven and carried out in many research sites at the national and international level? 14, 24 What consequences will big-data-related research have on the ethics review of studies, given the shift in the way research is designed and carried out? 25, 26 This situation led to the reform of clinical trials regulation, that has recently occurred both in the US and in the EU. In the US the 30 The new Regulation explicitly aims at simplifying and harmonizing both the application and the evaluation procedures for clinical trials, in order to ensure "that the Union remains an attractive place for conducting clinical trials" (whereas no. 8). The sponsors shall submit only one application-regardless of how many member states will be included in the trial-which is divided into two parts. Part I (Art. 6) concerns the so-called "technical-scientific aspects", including the evaluation of the methodology, the clinical relevance, the risk/benefit ratio, and will be reviewed by one reporting member state that will prepare an assessment report in agreement with the other member states involved. Part II (Art. 7) concerns aspects that each member state should assess for its own territory (like informed consent procedures, subject compensations, participants selection), by means of a single decision. How this single decision shall be reached is left to the deliberation of each member state (whereas no. 18) and is a matter of dispute. 31 Both reforms aim at addressing some of the inadequacies discussed above, especially the uncertainty about the time lag between the submission of a research project and the final REC decision, and the scarce coordination among RECs, that often leads to a great variety in the decisions they reach and in the revisions they demand. Even if there is agreement that these were serious shortcomings that needed to be tackled, 32-34 many commentators are doubtful that the centralization of the review process, besides being more efficient, will allow RECs to guarantee the protection of research participants. 33, 35, 36 The concern is particularly serious in the EU 37 because the decision of splitting the application into two parts determines two different reviews, one of the "technical-scientific aspects", the other of the local aspects of ethical relevance, without any guarantee that RECs will be involved in the evaluation of Part I. It is up to each member state "to determine the appropriate body or bodies to be involved in the assessment of the application to conduct a clinical trial and to organize the involvement of ethics committees" (whereas no. 18) and some member states have already opted for narrowing the scope of the ethics review performed by RECs to Part II. 38 For this reason commentators wrote that the new Regulation "defeats the role of ethics committees" 39(p504) that are gravely marginalized. 36 The idea that basic aspects of clinical trials-like its methodology, clinical relevance, objectives, the admissibility of placebo and the risk/benefit ratio-do not require an ethics review is clearly incoherent with the role of The ethical review must consider, among other aspects: the study design; provisions for minimizing risk; an appropriate balance of risks in relation to potential individual benefits for participants and the social value of the research; safety of the study site, medical interventions, and monitoring safety during the study; and the feasibility of the research". 9(p88) That in some European countries this could soon not be the case anymore is indeed very worrisome. 41 This would surely deserve an in-depth analysis, which is, however, outside the scope of this paper. Therefore, we will just offer some preliminary considerations. On the one hand, it is clear that the urgency related to the pandemic made a strong case for expediting the timing of the review process of research protocols: this experience made clear that, if we want to be prepared for the health challenges of a global world, streamlining and centralizing the review process are goals we must attain. On the other hand, the pandemic experience can offer important elements to reflect on the pitfalls of an expedited and centralized review process. There are already data suggesting that many studies The first RECs were created about 50 years ago to help achieve the difficult balance between promoting health-related research with human beings and protecting participants from the risk of exploitation. Over the years their task became increasingly complex due to deep changes in biomedical research: for instance, multi-site, sponsordriven studies, genetic research and research biobanking pose difficult challenges for a review system that had shown some limitations from the very beginning. The old shortcomings in the functioning of RECs and the present challenges fully justify reforms that aim at accelerating and simplifying the administrative processes for reviewing research protocols: the COVID-19 pandemic has been a stark reminder of the need to go in that direction. Moreover, centralization could offer some benefits also because, on the one hand, it could help in developing guidelines relating to emerging issues in a timely manner, in applying them evenly across countries and in enforcing them efficiently; on the other hand, it could allow dealing with the difficult but crucial issue of establishing research priorities-an issue that cannot be dealt with locally. However, in moving towards a future standard of ethics review, we should not forget the role that RECs were created to play and we need to be sure that the accelerated and more efficient procedures we put in place are not at the expense of the safety of research participants, especially those who are most vulnerable. To avoid this unwanted side effect, we propose two warnings and a plea. The focus of the regulations on pharmaceutical clinical trials must not make us forget other kinds of research, that can be equally relevant. We need to think of biomedical research as a whole and work to harmonize (and give clear indications on) the procedures and paths each kind of research should follow. We also need to protect and promote non-sponsored research, that usually has local roots that should be preserved. One of the ethical requirements of research with human participants that has emerged recently is that of collaborative partnership. 5, 13 Collaborative partnership supports the idea that "the community in which research is conducted should collaborate in the research endeavor" 13(p125) and that we should find a way to involve the community through its representatives to ask for their input and opinion about any research. Even if it did not mention community participation, the National Commission had underlined something similar: "In its deliberations, it is desirable that the IRB show awareness and appreciation of the various qualities, values and needs of the diverse elements of the community served by the institution in which it is located". 12(p14) The related suggestion was to assure a diverse membership in order to be able to be sensitive to the concerns of different stakeholders, especially potential research participants and vulnerable subjects. How a centralized REC can create collaborative partnership with local communities is a question that should be considered carefully. In conclusion, we suggest that the role of RECs we described above is still a goal we should try to attain. We discussed two crucial elements that should characterize RECs: a collaborative approach and the focus on the ethics component of the review. As to the latter, we have seen that the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, by splitting the evaluation of clinical trials into two parts, seriously endangers the possibility of maintaining this focus and risks offering insufficient protections to research participants. This is unacceptable and goes against a central tenet that has been guiding REC members for decades: the acknowledgement of the intrinsic ethical relevance of the scientific aspects of research protocols. As to the former, we argue that it is necessary to find ways to preserve it. Even if we decide that local RECs are no longer an option, given the way the research endeavour has evolved, we cannot but recognize that, if we delete them, we close "moral spaces" 53 consultation and support to local researchers. They have not always fully accomplished these goals, and maybe it was about time for a change. But these objectives are still crucial: a reform that aims at improving the way we review, approve, monitor and conduct clinical research with human subjects must find a way to preserve and promote them. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Ethical Principles & Guidelines for Research Involving Human Subjects Additional Protocol to the Convention on WMA Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 64th WMA General Assembly What makes clinical research ethical? Four paradigms of clinical research and research oversight Ethics and clinical research modifying the Annex to Council Directive 75/318/EEC on the approximation of the laws of Member States relating to analytical, pharmacotoxicological and clinical standards and protocols in respect of the testing of medicinal products (91/507/EEC) International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans. Geneva The Ethics Police? The Struggle to Make Human Research Safe Who's winning the IRB wars? The struggle for the soul of human research The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research An ethical framework for biomedical research The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals Office of Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services. Institutional Review Boards: A time for reform A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium A survey of IRB process in 68 US hospitals Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial Protecting research subjects -the crisis at Johns Hopkins A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants Evaluating the effectiveness of Institutional Review Boards The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review Big data, biomedical research, and ethics review: new challenges for IRBs Considerations for ethics review of big data health research: a scoping review Federal policy for the protection of human subjects The common rule, updated on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC What is the role of ethics committees after Regulation (EU) 536 Reform of clinical research regulations, finally Public comments on the proposed common rule mandate for single-IRB review of multisite research Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use: an overview New EU clinical trials regulation Application challenges of the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation Re-engineering the European Union Clinical Trials Directive Implementation of the EU clinical trial regulation transforms the ethics committee systems and endangers ethical standards Trials, regulation and tribulations Position of the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) on the responsibility of Research Ethics Committees during the COVID-19 pandemic Fast track procedure for Covid 19 clinical trials Waste in covid-19 research COVID-19 coronavirus research has overall low methodological quality thus far: case in point for chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine Deficiencies in the designs and interventions of COVID-19 clinical trials Ethics committees and research in Italy: seeking new regulatory frameworks (with a look at the past) Attuazione della delega per il riassetto e la riforma della normativa in materia di sperimentazione clinica dei medicinali ad uso umano, ai sensi dell'articolo 1 Delega al Governo in materia di sperimentazione clinica di medicinali nonché disposizioni per il riordino delle professioni sanitarie e per la dirigenza sanitaria del Ministero della salute National coordination centre of local ethics committees for clinical trials concerning medicinal products for human use and and medical devices Misure di potenziamento del Servizio sanitario nazionale e di sostegno economico per famiglie, lavoratori e imprese connesse all'emergenza epidemiologica da COVID-19 Misure urgenti in materia di accesso al credito e di adempimenti fiscali per le imprese, di poteri speciali nei settori strategici, nonchè interventi in materia di salute e lavoro Sperimentazione Clinica dei Medicinali in Italia 19th Rapporto Nazionale. Anno 2020 New images of ethics consulting How to cite this article: Tusino S, Furfaro M. Rethinking the role of Research Ethics Committees in the light of Regulation The authors wish to thank Corrado Viafora, Roberto Padrini, Anna Chiara Frigo and Enrico Furlan for manuscript review and valuable comments. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4336-5029Maria Furfaro https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3239-5839