1 / 23

Emerging SACHRP Issues

Emerging SACHRP Issues. K. Lynn Cates, MD Assistant Chief Research & Development Officer Director, PRIDE Office of Research & Development Department of Veterans Affairs October 17, 2005. SACHRP. Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection, HHS* Purpose

badu
Télécharger la présentation

Emerging SACHRP Issues

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Emerging SACHRP Issues K. Lynn Cates, MD Assistant Chief Research & Development Officer Director, PRIDE Office of Research & Development Department of Veterans Affairs October 17, 2005

  2. SACHRP • Secretary’s Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection, HHS* • Purpose • To provide expert advice & recommendations to the Secretary of HHS & the Assistant Secretary for Health on issues and topics pertaining to or associated with the protection of human research subjects. *Authority: 42 U.S.C. 217a, section 222, PHS Act

  3. Emerging SACHRP Issues • Federal Adverse Events Taskforce (FAET) • IRB Workshop

  4. Federal Adverse Event Taskforce • Charge • Propose specific means for promoting harmonized and streamlined federal requirements for reporting, analyzing, and communicating adverse events in clinical research.

  5. Federal Adverse Event Taskforce • Member Agencies • AHRQ • CDC • DoD • FDA • OHRP • NIH • VA

  6. Federal Adverse Events Taskforce • Objectives • Common terms & definitions • Common AE report forms • Common workflow patterns • Communications

  7. 1. Common Terms & Definitions • Reduce variability in language • e.g., “unanticipated problem” vs. “adverse event” or “unanticipated” vs. “unexpected” • Align federal agencies’ policies & guidance

  8. 2. Common AE Report Forms • Basal Adverse Event Report (BAER) • Develop a baseline set of core information adopted by all agencies • Address individual agency needs by adding extra fields

  9. 3. Common Workflow Patterns • Develop a best practices blue print for reporting, analyzing, and applying AE data

  10. AE Reporting in Multi-Center Clinical Trials: Trans-Federal Guidance • Clarify regulatory requirements for reporting and reviewing adverse events from multi-center trials • Outline criteria for when AE reports should be forwarded to other sites • Work with industry and academia

  11. 4. Communication • Effective communication • Enhance subjects’ safety • Further scientific knowledge • Earn public trust

  12. FAET Focus Groups • Examine current practices at the local level • What safety information does an IRB receive and when? • How is the safety information analyzed? • How and to whom is it communicated? • Identify Problem Areas • Does government contribute? • Define what needs to be done

  13. VA Local Management of Adverse Events:Mission • Ensure that local management of unanticipated problems in research, including adverse events, assures maximal protection for VA research participants, and complies fully with all laws, regulations, and standards.

  14. VA Local Management of Adverse Events:Charge • Identifying/Reporting • What should be reported? • When should it be reported? • Where should it be reported? • Monitoring • Who monitors? • What is monitored? • What trends/patterns require further action?

  15. VA Local Management of Adverse Events:Charge • Research v. Patient Safety • Corrective Action • Who takes action? • What are appropriate actions? • When does it become research misconduct?

  16. Alternatives to Current IRBs • IRB Workshop • VA Central IRB • “What is Research?” Panel

  17. IRB Workshop • Steering Group • OHRP • NIH • AAMC • ASCO • VA • November 17-18, 2005, Washington, DC

  18. IRB Workshop • Invitational, exploratory meeting • Diverse perspectives • IRBs • Academic and community-based investigators • Attorneys • Patients • Ethicists • Industry officials • Senior university and medical school research administrators

  19. IRB Workshop Topics • Institutional responsibilities • Ways to reduce burdens (especially for multi-site trials) • Costs and other barriers • The federal policy framework relevant to new IRB arrangements

  20. IRB Workshop: Follow-on Activities • Report for SACHRP on • The suitability of alternative models of IRB review for different research contexts • Strategies to address barriers • Public meeting

  21. VA Central IRB • Review multi-site VA studies • Assure quality by ensuring appropriate representation (scientific, ethical, “community”) • Enhance efficiency

  22. VA Central IRB: Timeline Fall 2005 • Implementation strategies Policies & procedures • Begin recruitment process for IRB Administrator • Site visits to NCI CIRB, Western & Chesapeake Winter 2005-6 • IRB Chair and field input Summer & Fall 2006 • Training – local accountability

  23. Alternatives to Current IRB System“What is Research?” Panel • Responsibilities • Review multi-site projects to determine whether or not they are “research” • Develop guidance for the field on “What is Research?” (vs. Quality) • High level representatives from ORD, ORO, Ethics, Patient Services, Quality

More Related