• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.1 no.1
• /
• pp.5-21
• /
• 2019

Purpose: Institutional review board (IRB) classifies risks of clinical trials into less than minimal risk, minor increase over minimal risk, and more than minimal risk. Based on classification and evaluation for risk, IRB decides whether permitting consent exemption or asking additional protection for clinical research subject or not. The purpose of this study is to analyze how IRB members evaluate minimal risk by sending questionnaire survey with 12 predetermined scenarios. Methods: IRB members and researchers (pediatrician, gastroenterologist, neurologist, and neurosurgeon) in 11 different hospitals were asked to answer survey questions via email or online. We analyzed the differences of answers among several subgroups in each predetermined scenarios. Result: Responders were 212 personnel(110 researchers and 102 IRB members) from 11 centers. There were significant differences between IRB members and researchers in response such as blood sampling, skin prick test, one time catheterization in a girl, spinal tapping in child, non-enhance MRI in child, non-enhance MRI with chrolal hydrate in a child, spinal tapping without anesthesia in adult, bioequivalence test, gastric endoscopy, and non-enhance CT. significant differences between medical IRB members and non-medical members were also revealed in one time catheterization in a girl, spinal tapping in a child, non-enhance MRI in a child, bioequivalence test. Depending on researchers' department, they responded differently in several questionnaires as well. Conclusions: We have found that IRB members and researchers evaluate the risks differently. Researchers compared to IRB members, medical IRB members compared to non-medical members answered less than minimal risk in many cases. In assessing and evaluating the risks associated with the study, medical IRB members answered predetermined scenarios as less dangerous compared to non-medical IRB members. Difference among researchers where also revealed significantly. Researchers answered predetermined scenarios as less dangerous compare to other department researchers, especially in predetermined scenarios containing procedures they are familiar with.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.165-206
• /
• 2018

Researchers, Institutional Bioethics Committee(IBC)/Institutional Review Board (IRB) members, Research Institutions that have multiple interests in relation to research should ensure that conflicts of interest(COI) do not arise in making professional judgments. In other words, according to the role that must be performed or the obligation to fulfill it, the primary interest, which must be considered or should be prioritized, should not be affected by the secondary interest. Therefore, standards and methods should be prepared so as to prevent and solve the problems of COI that have arisen, and the basic matters on standards and methods should be clearly defined in terms of the law and policy so that all parties such as Researchers can understand and follow them. In order to establish a more realistic legal policy, it is necessary to grasp the current situation. Therefore, I have reviewed results of the questionnaire survey and interview conducted for the administrative staff of IBC/IRB to confirm their opinions on legal policy problems related to COI and countermeasures for resolving them. Also, I have reviewed the main contents of issued by the US Department of Health and Human Services in order to assist in the preparation of domestic legal policy about conflicts of interest. Finally, I have analyzed the present state of domestic legal policy in relation to the Researcher's COI, the IBC/IRB member's COI, and Institutional COI and suggested way to improve it.

• Journal of Nutrition and Health
• /
• v.43 no.6
• /
• pp.653-660
• /
• 2010

Along with the steady growth of health functional food (HFF) markets, research evaluating the human effects of HFF has been expanding. In this study, we investigated the regulatory and management system of human study on HFF in the USA, Japan and UK, and the Korean domestic regulations on HHF, medicines, medical devices, cosmetics and biotechnology in order to improve the domestic management system. In these four countries, institutional review board (IRB) or research ethics committee (REC) approvals are required for on human study of HHF, but regulatory and management systems differ from country to country. In the USA, human studies on HFF for structure/function claims do not require the FDA's prior approval but clinical trials of the disease treatment effects of HHF require prior approval from the FDA. In the USA, IRBs are managed by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) rather than the FDA, and IRBs in those institutions which would execute the clinical trials requiring prior approval from the FDA or human studies funded by the USA federal government are required to be registered on the DHHS. In the UK, although the government does not require prior approval of human study, authorized RECs managed by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) and other independent RECs review the human study. In Japan, human study for HFF must conform with "Ethical guidelines for epidemiological research" and IRB registration has not been required. In Korean domestic regulations, the responsibilities, compositions, functions and operations of IRBs on medicines, medical devices and biotechnology are legally specified, but not those of IRB on HHF. These foreign statuses for the management of human study on HFF and comparisons with Korean regulations are expected to be used as basic data to improve the domestic legal system.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.13 no.2
• /
• pp.79-113
• /
• 2012

This study focuses on the protection of trial subjects, who participate in clinical trials for new drug. It takes long time to develop new drugs and the clinical trials are required. Usually, pharmaceutical company, which develop new drug, request a research institution(usually, hospital) to investigate the examination of security and side effects of new drug. The institution recruit trial subject to participate in the trials. The contract for clinical research of investigational new drug is concluded between the pharmaceutical company and the institution. This thesis studies the legal regulations for protection of participants of clinical research for new drug. In this respect the first matter of this study is to seek which relation between pharmaceutical firm and participants of clinical trials. Especially, there is a question which the trial subject is entitled to demand the pharmaceutical company which requested clinical trials the institution to supply the investigational new drug, after the contract for clinical trials had terminated or cancelled. This study take into account the liability of the pharmaceutical company to trial subject. Secondly, it is researched the roles and authority of Institutional Review Board(IRB). IRB is Research Ethics Committee of the institution, in which clinical trials for new drug are conducted. According to the rule of Korea good clinical practice(KGCP), IRB is the mandatory organization which is authorized to approve, secure approval or disapprove the clinical trials for investigational new drug in the institution. The important roles are the review of ethical perspective of trial research and the protection of trial subject. Thirdly, this paper focuses if the participants are to be paid for the participation for clinical research. This is ethical aspect of clinical trials. It is resonable that the participant is reimbursed for expenditure such as travels, and other expenses incurred in participation in trials. It is not allowed that the benefit of clinical trials is paid to trial subject. The payment should not function as financial inducements for participations of trials. Finally, the voluntary consent of the trial subject is required. The institution ought to inform the subject, who would like to participate in trials, and it ought to received informed consent in writing for subject. In this regard, it is matter that trial subject has ability of consent. It is principle that the subject as severely psychogeriatric patient has not ability of consent. However, it is required that not only healthy people but also patients are allowed to take part in clinical trials of new drug, in order to confirm which the investigation new drug is secure. Therefore there are cases, in which the legal representative of subject consent the participation of the trials. In addition, it is very important that the regulations concerning clinical trials of new drug is to be systematically well-modified. The approach of legal and political approach is needed to achieve this purpose.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.3 no.2
• /
• pp.28-36
• /
• 2021

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the status of the Human research Protection Program (HRPP) within a hospital or a research institute in Korea. Methods: Survey was conducted during June 12th-21th 2019. Survey was distributed to the members of Korean Association of IRB (KAIRB) through each IRB office. Descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS ver. 26. Results: A total of 86 people responded, and 75 (87.0%) answered that they have perceived the HRPP. Seventy out of 86 respondents (81.4%) were conducting internal audit, several institutions were operated simultaneously the other form of audits such as IRB audit, system audit. Regarding the management of Suspected Unexpected Serious Adverse Reaction (SUSAR), 62.8% answered that they have regulation that can decide to suspend the study when there is a risk to subject safety. Among the respondents, 66.3% performed 'Help desk.' Conclusion: In this study, we assessed the current status of HRPP operation at each research institution based on Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) HRPP guidelines. The HRPP accredited institution operated the subject protection activities according to this program, and even if the HRPP was not officially operated, the related activities were conducted focusing on the cases that could have a significant impact on the safety of research subjects. In order to ensure the quality of domestic clinical trials and to stably establish the HRPP, efforts at the individual institution level will be required.

• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.187-192
• /
• 2014

Research ethics is the basic attitude for researchers. Thanks to our predecessors we are able to conduct systematic studies. The current trend of results and the amount of study-oriented assessments make the side effect that researchers conduct SCI (Science Citation Index) studies. Since the Declaration of Helsinki, the importance of the right, safety and welfare for human participants have improved. In the present study, I looked into other countries' standpoints concerning the subject of the responsibilities for research ethics and compared them with Korean's standpoint. Recently, the Ministry of Health and Welfare revised the laws for bioethics and safety. In the point of bioethics, I checked out the function, exemption and process of the Institutional Review Board for the future researcher. It is suggested to use the research note to verify a study procedure and protect oneself from research misconducts.

• Journal of Korean society of Dental Hygiene
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.241-250
• /
• 2014

Objectives : The purpose of the study was to examine the ethical requirements for the protection of human subjects in the publication guidelines of dental health journals. Methods : The guidelines of 27 dental health journals were reviewed to determine ethical standards alone, with Helsinki Declaration, by an institutional review board (IRB), informed consent, protection of subject privacy and confidentiality, and no conflicts of interest. Results : 1. Dentistry journals listed on National Research Foundation of Korea had a conflict of interest disclosure provisions of the contribution(76.9%) and the IRB approval(61.5%). 2. Half of the dental health journals were not listed on National Research Foundation of Korea Society but they agreed the advance posting provisions. 3. Dental hygiene journals provide 100% of ethics alone and receive 75% of IRB in the papers. 4. Dental health and dental hygiene journals have conflicts of interest disclosure regulations(59.2%) and IRB approval(51.8%). 5. There existed statistically significant differences between the dental health journals whether they were listed on the human subjects and ethical standards for protection in National Research Foundation of Korea or not. Conclusions : While the publication guidelines of dental health journals have followed to a greater extent in recent years, there is still a need for further instructions to ensure that the authors satisfy all ethical requirements in conducting research on human subjects. IRB approval for dental journals must be standardized and reinforced reflecting the characteristics of each journals. The researchers should obey the code of ethics suitable for education and the editors must review the paper continuously.

• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.23-31
• /
• 2020

Purpose: To obtain opinions from Korean Institutional Review Board (IRB) members' self-evaluation on ability to conduct fairness review of clinical trial protocol with presence of conflict of interest and from investigators and IRB members on financial conflict of interest through surveying. Methods: IRB members and researchers in 9 different hospitals were asked to answer survey questions via email. Results: Responders were 115 personnel (IRB Chair/vice 18, medical member 30, non-medical member 28, and researcher 39) from 9 centers. Compared to IRB medical members, IRB chair/vice respondents scored higher with statistically significance on 10 point scale (8.44±1.381 vs. 7.30±1.685, p=0.005) when asked to self-evaluate fairness reviewing a protocol proposed by an investigator from the same department and a protocol from the company that supports the scientific committee of responders. When reviewing a protocol proposed by a hospital director, non-medical members scored statistically significantly higher than medical-members (7.47±1.76 vs. 8.07±2.70, p=0.034). When asked about the limitation of labor fee for principal investigator on phase 3 Human clinical trials of the Investigational new drug, while the responses range was wide, 60% answered that labor cost of principal investigator should be less than 30% of total budget for clinical trials with a budget of 100 million won. 51.3% answered that there is no need to disclose the labor cost of the principal investigator in the consent form. Since every investigator can be influenced unconsciously by conflict of interest, the answer that 'responder agrees that there is need for management' was the most chosen answer (IRB member 61.8%, investigator 64.1%, multiple answers allowed). Conclusion: Considering scores on questions of fairness by IRB members were between 7.23-8.56 on scale of 0 to 10 point when IRB members were asked about reviewing a clinical trial protocol, it cannot be said with absolute certainty that there is no issue regarding fairness in the review process. Therefore, there should be more ways to safeguard fairness for these issues. There is a need that the disclosure amount of honorarium from sponsor should be lower than 100 million Korean won. Considering the results of the survey in which respondents expressed their thoughts, it is likely that more education on the concept of conflict of interest is needed.

• Journal of Physiology & Pathology in Korean Medicine
• /
• v.25 no.5
• /
• pp.927-933
• /
• 2011

This study aimed to evaluate the quality of herbal medicine-related RCT (Randomized controlled clinical trial) papers. 79 papers were searched from the domestic Hakjin paper list, and 16 papers of them were evaluated in terms of the Jadad Quality Assessment Scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment, and ethical validity. The evaluation results from Jadad Quality Assessment Scale showed that 15 papers showed high quality with the Jadad score of 3 points or higher, and none of the papers had a problem with randomization and double-blinding. The evaluation results from adequacy of allocation concealment showed that 3 of the papers were executed proper allocation concealment, and all of them had 5 points of Jadad score. IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval and written consent was investigated for the evaluation of ethical validity, and 12 papers had the IRB approval, and 14 papers had written consent. The papers published before 2005 were absent of IRB approval and written consent, and none of the papers had IRB approval number. From the above results, it is concluded that rigorous clinical research led high quality of research papers, and the ethical aspect of clinical researches are getting more important to protect the rights of research participants.

• Journal of Physiology & Pathology in Korean Medicine
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.566-570
• /
• 2010

This review was conducted to investigate clinical trial trend, clinical effect, and study methods of forest healing. Literature search was performed using the search engines of eight electronic databases from inception to march 2010 without language limitation. The search terms were "forest healing", "forest experience", "forest therapy", "forest treatment", "clinical trial", and "clinical study". Inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) among all kinds of study searched about forest healing. Selection literature and data extraction was performed by authors(SH Sun and SG Lee) independently. Total three studies were selected finally. The methodological quality in all study was low because of poor reporting. Study indications were metal health, depression, self-esteem, and stress. The scale of studies was very small, which was the level of pilot study. There were no description for obtaining informed consent and being reviewed by Institutional Review Board (IRB), and could be any problems for statistical method in any studies. It is difficult to accept the fact that each studies had the significant effect for study indications in the results of studies. It is concluded that the evidence that health healing have a significant effect is insufficient. Further systematic and methodological study and well-designed clinical trial will be needed.