Book contents
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Advancing Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies in a Collaborative Science Ecosystem
- Section 2 Non-clinical Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease Candidate Drugs
- Section 3 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- Section 4 Imaging and Biomarker Development in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Discovery
- Section 5 Academic Drug-Development Programs
- 37 Institutional Review Boards and Oversight of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
- 38 SPARKing Drug Development for Alzheimer’s Disease in Academia
- 39 The Role of Professional Associations and Patient Advocacy in Advancing Alzheimer’s Drug Development
- Section 6 Public–Private Partnerships in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Section 7 Funding and Financing Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Index
- References
37 - Institutional Review Boards and Oversight of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
from Section 5 - Academic Drug-Development Programs
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 March 2022
Book contents
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgments
- Section 1 Advancing Alzheimer’s Disease Therapies in a Collaborative Science Ecosystem
- Section 2 Non-clinical Assessment of Alzheimer’s Disease Candidate Drugs
- Section 3 Alzheimer’s Disease Clinical Trials
- Section 4 Imaging and Biomarker Development in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Discovery
- Section 5 Academic Drug-Development Programs
- 37 Institutional Review Boards and Oversight of Alzheimer’s Disease Trials
- 38 SPARKing Drug Development for Alzheimer’s Disease in Academia
- 39 The Role of Professional Associations and Patient Advocacy in Advancing Alzheimer’s Drug Development
- Section 6 Public–Private Partnerships in Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Section 7 Funding and Financing Alzheimer’s Disease Drug Development
- Index
- References
Summary
In the United States, institutional review boards (IRBs) occupy a crucial independent oversight role and are, therefore, a familiar part of the Alzheimer’s disease (AD) research landscape. IRBs serve as gatekeepers, providing ethical and regulatory oversight of research to ensure the adequacy of human subject protections. In this chapter, we provide an overview of IRBs, consider how to manage conflicts of interest, and highlight select ethical issues that arise in AD research.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Alzheimer's Disease Drug DevelopmentResearch and Development Ecosystem, pp. 429 - 436Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2022
References
Largent, EA, Joffe, S, Miller, FG. Can research and care be ethically integrated? Hastings Cent Rep 2011; 41: 37–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emanuel, EJ, Wendler, D, Grady, C. What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA 2000; 283: 2701–11.Google Scholar
Grady, C. Institutional review boards: purposes and challenges. Chest 2015; 148: 1148–55.Google Scholar
Silverman, H, Hull, SC, Sugarman, J. Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 235–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirshon, JM. Variability in institutional review board assessment of minimal-risk research. Acad Emerg Med 2002; 9: 1417–20.Google Scholar
Cummings, J, Aisen, PS, DuBois, B, et al. Drug development in Alzheimer’s disease: the path to 2025. Alzheimers Res Ther 2016; 8: 39.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fost, N, Levine, RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA 2007; 298: 2196.Google Scholar
Lynch, HF, Rosenfeld, S. Institutional review board quality, private equity, and promoting ethical human subjects research. Ann Intern Med 2020; 173: 558–62.Google Scholar
Emanuel, EJ, Lemmens, T, Elliot, C. Should society allow research ethics boards to be run as for-profit enterprises? PLoS Med 2006; 3: e309.Google Scholar
Lemmens, T, Freedman, B. Ethics review for sale? Conflict of interest and commercial research review boards. Milbank Q 2000; 78: 547–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klitzman, R. Institutional review board community members: who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent? Acad Med 2012; 87: 975–81.Google Scholar
Lynch, HF, Nicholls, SG, Meyer, M, Taylor, HA. Of parachutes and participant protection: moving beyond quality to advance effective research ethics oversight. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2019; 14 :190–6.Google Scholar
Tsan, M-F. Measuring the quality and performance of institutional review boards. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics 2019; 14: 187–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCoy, MS, Emanuel, EJ. Why there are no “potential” conflicts of interest. JAMA 2017; 317: 1721–2.Google Scholar
Cho, MK, Ryo, S, Schissel, A, Drummond, R. Policies on faculty conflicts of interest at US universities. JAMA 2000; 284: 2203.Google Scholar
Ahn, R, Woodbridge, A, Abraham, A, et al. Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study. BMJ 2017; 356: i6770.Google Scholar
Institute of Medicine. Patient Outcomes Research Teams (PORTS): Managing Conflict of Interest. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 1981.Google Scholar
International Committe of Medical Journal Editors. Disclosure of financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflicts of interest. Available at: www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/author-responsibilities--conflicts-of-interest.html (accessed November 22, 2020).Google Scholar
Rockey, SJ. Managing financial conflict of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2010; 303: 2400.Google Scholar
Morain, SR, Joffe, S, Campbell, EG, Mello, MM. Institutional oversight of faculty–industry consulting relationships in U.S. medical schools: a Delphi study. J Law Med Ethics 2015; 43: 383–96.Google Scholar
Mello, MM, Murtagh, L, Joffe, S. Beyond financial conflicts of interest: institutional oversight of faculty consulting agreements at schools of medicine and public health. PLoS One 2018; 13: e0203179.Google Scholar
Ehringhaus, SH. Responses of medical schools to institutional conflicts of interest. JAMA 2008; 299: 665.Google Scholar
Campbell, EG, Weissman, JS, Vogeli, C. Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. N Engl J Med 2006; 355: 2321–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bauchner, H, Fontanarosa, PB, Flanagin, A. Conflicts of interests, authors, and journals: new challenges for a persistent problem. JAMA 2018; 320: 2315.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, PS. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 1834–40.Google Scholar
Jeste, DV, Palmer, BW, Appelbaum, PS. A new brief instrument for assessing decisional capacity for clinical research. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007; 64: 966.Google Scholar
Dunn, LB, Nowrangi, MA, Palmer, BW, Jeste, DV, Saks, ER. Assessing decisional capacity for clinical research or treatment: a review of instruments. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 1323–34.Google Scholar
Keyserlingk, EW, Glass, K, Kogan, S, Gauthier, S. Proposed guidelines for the participation of persons with dementia as research subjects. Perspect Biol Med 1995; 38: 319–61.Google Scholar
Black, BS, Rabins, PV, Sugarman, J, Karlawish, JH. Seeking assent and respecting dissent in dementia research. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2010; 18: 77–85.Google Scholar
Karlawish, J. Research involving cognitively impaired adults. N Engl J Med 2003; 348: 1389–92.Google Scholar
Morain, SR, Joffe, S, Largent, EA. When is it ethical for physician-investigators to seek consent from their own patients? Am J Bioeth 2019; 19: 11–18.Google Scholar
Cho, MK, Magnus, D, Constantine, M, et al. Attitudes toward risk and informed consent for research on medical practices: a cross-sectional survey. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: 690.Google Scholar
Kelley, M, James, C, Kraft, SA, et al. Patient perspectives on the learning health system: the importance of trust and shared decision making. Am J Bioeth 2015; 15: 4–17.Google Scholar
Largent, EA, Karlawish, J. Rescuing research participants after Alzheimer trials stop early: sending out an SOS. JAMA Neurol 2020; 77: 413–14.Google Scholar
Pierce, AL, Cox, CG, Nguyen, HT, et al. Participant satisfaction with learning Alzheimer disease clinical trial results. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 2018; 32: 366–8.Google Scholar