Updating the Common Rule Governing Human Subjects Research Protections

Office for Human Research Protections

1

Updating the Common Rule Governing Human Subjects

Research Protections

Jerry Menikoff

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

22

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this presentation and those of the presenter and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Health and Human Services or any subdivision thereof.

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

333

I. Background

• Twenty years have passed since the “Common Rule” was adopted

• Nature of research activities has changed dramatically.

• Multi-site studies; genomics; internet and information technology

• Time to update the Common Rule: goal of improving protections for subjects, while making the rules function more effectively

• Thus, an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

444

I. Background

• Current rules on secondary use of data:• If stripped of identifiers, no human

subject, thus not subject to these rules.• Can even keep one-way link to original

data source, and collect new information• Genomic data is not per se identifiable• No consent needed under those

scenarios• Even if a study uses “human subjects,” it

can still be found exempt from needing to follow these rules.

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

II. Ensuring Risk-Based Protections

5

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

6666


Goal is to better target time and effort spent on reviewing a study to the risk of the study.

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

777

II. Ensuring Risk-Based ProtectionsCurrent framework has tiers of review:

• Review by a convened IRB — Studies with greater than minimal risk

• Expedited review –commonly single IRB reviewer

• Exempt --six categories exempted from IRB review altogether

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

88888


• Currently, no specific standards for protecting privacy and confidentiality

• IRBs currently must, where appropriate, determine that there are adequate protections

• New standards for data security and information protection that would apply to appropriate studies

• IRB would no longer be responsible for reviewing this aspect of protocols

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

99999


• Convened IRB Review — Only change: continuing review not required if only analyzing data or collecting new data from standard clinical follow-up

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

1010101010


Eligibility for Expedited Review:• Regular updates to list of research activities

that qualify for expedited review • Presumption that a study which includes

only activities on the list is a minimal risk study and should receive expedited review (reviewer option to send to convened IRB)

• Considering whether a study eligible for expedited review should be required to meet all of the current criteria for IRB approval

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

1111111111


Eliminating Continuing Review of Expedited Studies

• Default -- no continuing review for studies that qualify for expedited review

• Reviewer could make a specific determination (with justification) that continuing review is appropriate for a study

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

1212121212


• Streamlining Documentation Requirements for Expedited Studies

• Templates for protocols and consent forms

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

131313131313


Revising and expanding current exempt category:

• No longer fully “exempt”—adhere to data security rules, some consent rules

• Requiring brief registration form to be filed with institution

• Research could generally begin immediately after filing

• Eliminate current routine review of almost all exempt studies; audit some to verify qualification

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

141414141414


Expansions of “exempt” categories:• Surveys conducted with competent adults

would qualify, even if “risky” identifiable data• Perhaps a new category for social and

behavioral research involving specified types of benign interventions that are known to involve virtually no risk to subjects

• “Secondary” research with existing biospecimens and data would qualify, even if identifiers retained; consent rules

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

III. Streamlining IRB Review of Multi-site Studies

15

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

1616161616161616

III. Streamlining IRB Review of Multi-site Studies

• Mandating that all domestic sites in a multi-site study rely upon a single IRB as their IRB of record for that study.

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

IV. Improving Informed Consent

17

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

1818181818181818


Goal is to produce consent forms that do a much better job in informing prospective subjects by:

• Prescribing how information should be presented in consent forms

• Providing more specifics about content that should be in the forms, and about what should not be in them (vs. in appendix)

• Reducing institutional “boilerplate”

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

191919191919191919


• Written consent for biospecimens collected after effective date

• Open-ended standard consent form for giving consent to broad future use

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

V. Strengthening Data Protections To Minimize Information Risks

20

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

212121212121212121

V. Strengthening Data Protections To Minimize Information Risks

• As mentioned earlier: new data security protections that would apply to research involving identifiable information

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

222222222222222222

V. Strengthening Data Protections to Minimize Information Risks

• Common Rule definition of when data is “identifiable” would be harmonized with definition in HIPAA Privacy Rule

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

VI. Data Collection To Enhance System Oversight

23

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

24242424242424242424

VI. Data Collection To Enhance System Oversight

• Create a web-based portal for investigators to submit safety data and automatically have it delivered to appropriate agencies

• Harmonize safety reporting guidance across all Federal agencies

• Central repository

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

VII. Extension of Federal Regulations

25

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

2626262626262626262626

VII. Extension of Federal Regulations

• Require domestic institutions that receive some Federal funding from a Common Rule agency for research with human subjects to extend the Common Rule protections to all research studies conducted at their institution.

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

VIII. Clarifying and Harmonizing Regulatory Requirements and Agency Guidance

27

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

2828282828282828282828

VIII. Clarifying and Harmonizing Regulatory Requirements and Agency Guidance

Request for Comments

How do differences in guidance from different agencies either strengthen or weaken protections for human subjects or the ability to conduct research?

• Should these differences be reduced?

Offi

ce fo

r H

uman

R

esea

rch

Pro

tect

ions

How to find the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

www.hhs.gov/ohrp

Click the big blue button!

Check out the 1,100 comments!

29

http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp

Updating the Common Rule Governing Human Subjects Research Protections

Documents

Transcript of Updating the Common Rule Governing Human Subjects Research Protections