Leslie E. Wolf

The Havasupai Indian Tribe Case — Lessons for Research Involving Stored Biologic Samples

On April 20, 2010, Arizona State University (ASU) agreed to pay

Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research.

700,000 to 41 members of the Havasupai Indian tribe to settle legal claims that university researchers improperly used tribe members’ blood samples in genetic research. The settlement closes a difficult chapter for both parties but leaves open a bedeviling question for genetic research: What constitutes adequate informed consent for biospecimens collected for research to be stored and used in future, possibly unrelated studies? The case illuminates the clashing values that have driven debate in this area and the importance of understanding the study population’s perspectives.

A New Era in the Ethics of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

PURPOSE This article explores the challenges that practice-based research networks (PBRNs) face with respect to the regulatory requirements for institutional review board (IRB) review and the protection of human subjects in research. METHODS We used a regulatory and literature review, our previous research involving PBRN researchers, and our experience to identify issues in regulatory compliance and human subjects protections that present challenges to PBRNs and to suggest possible responses. RESULTS We identified 3 challenges that PBRNs face with respect to regulatory compliance and human subjects protections. First, ensuring compliance with federal regulations governing human subjects research across all participating practices may be difficult. Clinicians may be unfamiliar with the regulatory requirements and may not have access to an IRB that can provide the required protocol review; moreover, different IRBs may impose inconsistent requirements. Second, conducting research in the practice setting presents unique issues regarding identification of human subjects, consent, and confidentiality. Finally, the use of electronic databases across practices for research raises concerns about how to respect the wishes of participants when combining data and how to maintain confidentiality of data. CONCLUSIONS PBRN research makes unique contributions to the clinical evidence base by collecting data in community settings where most clinical care is provided. Such research, however, also presents unique challenges to human subject protections and regulatory compliance. Addressing these challenges is necessary to maintain public trust in and support for PBRN research. With careful planning, these ethical and regulatory challenges can be overcome.

The Challenges of IRB Review and Human Subjects Protections in Practice-Based Research

Scientific progress in human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research and increased funding make it imperative to look ahead to the ethical issues generated by the expected use of hESCs for transplantation. Several issues should be addressed now, even though phase I clinical trials of hESC transplantation are still in the future. To minimize the risk of hESC transplantation, donors of materials used to derive hESC lines will need to be recontacted to update their medical history and screening. Because of privacy concerns, such recontact needs to be discussed and agreed to at the time of donation, before new hESC lines are derived. Informed consent for phase I clinical trials of hESC transplantation also raises ethical concerns. In previous phase I trials of highly innovative interventions, allegations that trial participants had not really understood the risk and benefits caused delays in subsequent trials. Thus, researchers should consider what information needs to be discussed during the consent process for hESC clinical trials and how to verify that participants have a realistic understanding of the study. Lack of attention to the special ethical concerns raised by clinical trials of hESC transplantation and their implications for the derivation of new hESC lines may undermine or delay progress toward stem cell therapies.

Implementing Routine HIV Testing: The Role of State Law

Practice-based research raises unique challenges with respect to human subjects protections and institutional review board (IRB) review. In this paper, three challenges posed by practice-based research are analyzed: (1) IRB review for clinician investigators who are not affiliated with an institution that has an IRB; (2) multiple IRB review; and (3) required human subjects protection training of key personnel. Investigators should be proactive in addressing required IRB review in practice-based research. In particular, they need to ensure that appropriate IRB review is obtained for all performance sites and plan for review for unaffiliated investigators. Practice-based research investigators and professional societies should educate IRB members and policy makers and publish articles regarding how IRBs might best address human subjects concerns in practice-based research. Furthermore, practice-based research investigators and professional societies should work with IRBs and the Office for Human Research Protections to facilitate centralized or cooperative review of practice-based research. Finally, practice-based research investigators need to ensure that their clinician investigators receive appropriate training in human subjects protection. Practice-based research investigators and professional societies can facilitate this process by helping to define and implement the appropriate training for busy practice-based research clinicians and office staff.

The Wendland Case — Withdrawing Life Support from Incompetent Patients Who Are Not Terminally Ill

In September 2006, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommended routine HIV testing for all Americans aged 13–64, which would eliminate requirements for written consent and pretest counseling as previously required. However, this approach may conflict with state requirements concerning pretest counseling and informed consent for HIV testing. Our survey of state HIV testing laws demonstrates that the majority of states have HIV testing requirements that are inconsistent with the CDCs recommendations. Moreover, states that have recently amended their laws have not eased the requirements for pretest counseling and informed consent. The reasons for the persistence of these legal requirements must be understood to effect policy changes to increase HIV testing.

Ethical issues in early detection of HIV infection to reduce vertical transmission.

Many patients do not have formal plans about who should make end-of-life decisions for them if they become unable to make such decisions themselves. This Sounding Board article reviews the case of a man who had informal conversations with his wife and children about end-of-life care, but who had not made a formal statement about either his wishes or who should act in his interest if he were unable to do so. Head trauma received in an automobile accident resulted in substantial but not life-threatening neurologic impairment. In an important decision, the Supreme Court of California sided with the patients mother, who wished to keep him alive, rather than with his wife and daughter, who wished not to replace a feeding tube. The authors review the case and its implications for end-of-life decisions.

Survey of U.S. Human Research Protection Organizations: Workload and Membership

&NA;Proposals to make prenatal HIV testing routine and universal dramatize ethical issues regarding early detection of HIV. These proposals would abolish pretest counseling and written informed consent for prenatal HIV testing. Ethical concerns include whether pregnant women are adequately informed that they may refuse such testing and whether patients have an opportunity to obtain more detailed information about the benefits and risks of HIV testing in this context. Several pertinent research questions need to be studied, including whether pregnant women find routine universal HIV testing acceptable and whether safeguards adequately protect women who receive testing. If analogous policies to enhance early detection of HIV are considered in other clinical contexts, the important clinical and ethical differences between vertical transmission and other situations of HIV transmission must be kept clearly in mind.

Differences in preferences for models of consent for biobanks between Black and White women

In a national survey of institutions with federally assured human research protection programs, we obtained workload and other relevant data on their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and management organizations. The number of IRBs increased substantially from 1995 to 2005/06 (491 to 2,728 IRBs) with a further increase in 2008 to 3,853 IRBs. Nationally, IRBs reviewed over a quarter million research applications in the year prior to our survey, of which 35% were new applications requiring full committee review. Compared to estimates from 1995, current IRBs review more new and full committee review applications, but the relative percentage of new and full committee applications remained about the same. High volume research institutions have IRBs with a substantially larger per person workload, relative to smaller volume IRBs (i.e., members spent nearly seven times more hours reviewing new applications outside formal committee meetings). Virtually all IRBs included community representatives as members (92%); however, a small number may not be compliant with federal regulations. The present findings suggest the need for research to (a) examine workload and its effects on review quality, research costs, and faculty morale, (b) develop methods for determining optimal fit between IRB workload demands and institutional labor and financing requirements, (c) construct benchmarks for judging reasonable workload for individual IRB members, and (d) examine if the need to recruit IRB scientific expertise from outside the institution, particularly true for smaller research institutions, causes delays in IRB review, and if a more effective way of locating and recruiting experts would improve quality and time to completion.

Institutional review boards' use and understanding of certificates of confidentiality.

Biobanks are essential resources, and participation by individuals from diverse groups is needed. Various models of consent have been proposed for secondary research use of biospecimens, differing in level of donor control and information received. Data are needed regarding participant preferences for models of consent, particularly among minorities. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 60 women to examine their attitudes about different models of consent. Recruitment was stratified by race (Black/White) and prior biobank participation (yes/no). Two coders independently coded interview transcripts. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. The majority of Black and White participants preferred “broad” consent (i.e., blanket permission for secondary research use of biospecimens), and the second most preferred model for both groups was “study-specific” consent (i.e., consent for each future research study). The qualitative analysis showed that participants selected their most preferred model for 3 major reasons: having enough information, having control over their sample, and being asked for permission. Least preferred was notice model (i.e., participants notified that biospecimens may be used in future research). Attitudes toward models of consent differed somewhat by race and prior biobank participation. Participants preferred models of consent for secondary research use of biospecimens that provided them with both specific and general information, control over their biospecimens, and asked them to give permission for use. Our findings suggest that it will be important for researchers to provide information about future uses of biospecimens to the extent possible and have an explicit permission step for secondary research use.