IRB Review of Virtual Trial Technologies
Our webinar proved so popular, we thought a deeper dive would be appropriate. In this post we explore some key issues IRBs face when reviewing research involving virtual trial technology.
Our webinar proved so popular, we thought a deeper dive would be appropriate. In this post we explore some key issues IRBs face when reviewing research involving virtual trial technology.
The opioid crisis in particular is staggering in the number of lives it has claimed. Combating the crisis requires urgent, evidence-based approaches that addresses clinical, research, and education issues.
In a recent webinar, Advarra IRB and research compliance experts discussed key areas to consider as we look to ramp up research in the COVID-19 pandemic’s “new normal.” In this blog our experts answer some of the most popular audience questions.
Recent years have seen increased efforts to engage with patient and participant communities and include them more closely in research. This approach is reflected in the founding of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) as well as statements from the US Institute of Medicine and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the importance of including participant perspectives at every stage of the research process—from the design of studies through their implementation and the dissemination of research results.
Complex trial designs can eliminate less-promising investigational treatments quickly to speed development, but they remain under-utilized. The current pandemic offers a chance to consider strategies for facilitating adoption of such innovative designs.
Recent regulations and policies have ushered in the era of mandated single IRB (sIRB) review. Many institutions must now establish policies and processes for working with an external sIRB.
Experts from Advarra and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine provided practical guidance on the COVID-19 research impact in a recent webinar. We’ve addressed the most popular Q&A topics here.
What is the difference between “public” and “private” internet spaces? This question has gained importance with the growing practice of using internet and social media platforms as a source of research data.
Scientific abstracts and articles have reported that 20-50% of studies do not accrue subjects at the site level (1-6). This contributes to a significant amount of waste in clinical research, particularly in the forms of staff time and monetary resources. Such waste can be reduced through the careful selection of clinical trials to activate early in the process, before investing a lot of resources. The protocol feasibility review process achieves this by providing a method to review the logistical aspects of a clinical trial prior to starting the activation process.
Study activation data from the Forte community shows on average, it takes about six months to activate a new, interventional, treatment clinical trial. Long activation periods are not a new trend – in 2008, Dr. David Dilts’ findings showed it took hundreds of steps to activate an NCI-funded trial at a single site. This was just to get the study open to accrual, not to conduct the study. He also found that not all steps added value to the process. To make his point, he charted the study activation process and when he was done, it was 50 feet long by 5 feet tall and in 8-point font! If the clinical development time of a new treatment is to ever decrease, reducing the time in study activation is necessary so actual research can be done.
Research doesn’t just inform medical treatment; it informs public health and public policy, and it helps explain human behaviors.
In this blog we discuss unique issues that research involving emerging infectious diseases like coronavirus can raise for IRB review and research informed consent.