• The Journal of KAIRB
• /
• v.2 no.2
• /
• pp.37-48
• /
• 2020

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to assess the operational status and level of understanding among IRB and HRPP staffs at a hospital or a research institute to the HRPP guideline set by the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and to provide recommendations. Methods: Online survey was distributed among members of Korean Association of IRB (KAIRB) through each IRB office. The result was separated according to topic and descriptive statistics was used for analysis. Result: Survey notification was sent out to 176 institutions and 65 (37.1%) institutions answered the survey by online. Of 65 institutions that answered the survey; 83.1% was hospital, 12.3% was university, 3.1% was medical college, 1.5% was research institution. 23 institutions (25.4%) established independent HRPP offices and 39 institutions (60.0%) did not. 12 institutions (18.5%) had separate IRB and HRPP heads, 21 (32.3%) institutions separated business reporting procedure and person in charge, 12 institutions separated the responsibility of IRB and HRPP among staff, and 45 institutions (69.2%) had audit & non-compliance managers. When asked about the most important basic task for HRPP, 23% answered self-audit. And according to 43.52%, self-audit was also the most by both institutions that operated HRPP and institutions that did not. When basic task performance status was analyzed, on average, the institutions that operated HRPP was 14% higher than institutions that only operated IRB. 9 (13.8%) institutions were evaluated and obtained HRPP accreditation from MFDS and the most common reason for obtaining the accreditation was to be selected as Institution for the education of persons conducting clinical trial (6 institutions). The most common reason for not obtaining HRPP accreditation was because of insufficient staff and limited capacity of the institution (28%). Institutions with and without a plan to be HRPP accredited by MFDS were 20 (37.7%) each. 34 institutions (52.3%) answered HRPP evaluation method and accreditation by MFDS was appropriate while 31 institutions (47.7%) answered otherwise. 36 institutions answered that HRPP evaluation and accreditation by MFDS was credible while 29 institutions (44.5%) answered that HRPP evaluation method and accreditation by MFDS was not credible. Conclusion: 1. MFDS's HRPP accreditation program can facilitate the main objective of HRPP and MFDS's HRPP accreditation program should be encouraged to non-tertiary hospitals by taking small staff size into consideration and issuing accreditation by segregating accreditation. 2. While issuing Institution for the education of persons conducting clinical trial status as a benefit of MFDS's HRPP accreditation program, it can also hinder access to MFDS's HRPP accreditation program. It should also be considered that the non-contact culture during COVID-19 pandemic eliminated time and space limitation for education. 3. For clinical research conducted internally by an institution, internal audit is the most effective and sole method of protecting safety and right of the test subjects and integrity for research in Korea. For this reason, regardless of the size of the institution, an internal audit should be enforced. 4. It is necessary for KAIRB and MFDSto improve HRPP awareness by advocating and educating the concept and necessity of HRPP in clinical research. 5. A new HRPP accreditation system should be setup for all clinical research with human subjects, including Investigational New Drug (IND) application in near future.

• Tuberculosis and Respiratory Diseases
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.75-87
• /
• 1996

Background: Lung cancer is the second most frequent malignancy in man in Korea. Surgery is the best treatment modality for non-small cell lung cancer, but most patients were presented in far advanced stage. So radiation therapy(RT) with or without chemotherapy is the next choice and radiation-induced pneumonitis and pulmonary fibrosis is the major limiting factor for the curative RT. Radiation pneumonitis is manifested with fever, cough and dyspnea, 2~3 months after the termination of radiotherpy. Chest X ray shows infiltration, typically limited to the radiation field, but occasionally bilateral infiltration was reported. Also Gibson et al reported that BAL lymphocytosis was found in both lungs, even though the radiation was confined to one lung. The aim of this study is to investigate the change of adhesion molecules expression on BAL cells and serum soluble ICAM-1(sICAM-1) level after the RT and its relationship to the development of radiation pneumonitis. The second aim is to confirm the bilaterality of change of BAL cell pattern and adhesion molecule expression. Subjects: BAL and the measurement of sICAM level in serum and BALF were done on 29 patients with lung cancer who received RT with curative intention. The BAL was done before the RT in 16 patients and 1~2 month after RT in 18 patients. 5 patients performed BAL before and after RT. Result: Clinically significant radiation pneumonitis developed in 7 patients. After RT, total cell count in BAL was significantly increased from $(20.2{\pm}10.2){\times}10^6\;cells/ml$ to $(35.3{\pm}21.6){\times}10^6\;cells/ml$ (p=0.0344) and %lymphocyte was also increased from $5.3{\pm}4.2%$ to $39.6{\pm}23.4%$ (p=0.0001) in all patient group. There was no difference between ipsilateral and contraleteral side to RT, and between the patients with and without radiation-pneumonitis. In whole patient group, the level of sICAM-1 showed no significant change after RT(in serum: $378{\pm}148$, $411{\pm}150\;ng/ml$, BALF: $20.2{\pm}12.2$, $45.1{\pm}34.8\;ng/ml$, respectively), but there was a significant difference between the patients with pneumonitis and without pneumonitis (serum: $505{\pm}164$ vs $345{\pm}102\;ng/ml$, p=0.0253, BALF: $67.9{\pm}36.3$ vs $25.2{\pm}17.9\;ng/ml$, p=0.0112). The expression of ICAM-1 on alveolar macrophages (AM) tends to increase after RT (RMFI: from $1.28{\pm}0.479$ to $1.63{\pm}0.539$, p=0.0605), but it was significantly high in patients with pneumonitis ($2.10{\pm}0.390$) compared to the patients without pneumonitis ($1.28{\pm}0.31$, p=0.0002). ICAM-1 expression on lymphocytes and CD 18 (${\beta}2$-integrin) expression tended to be high in the patients with pneumonitis but the difference was statiastically not significant. Conclusion: Subclinical alveolitis on the basis of BAL finding developed bilaterally in all patients after RT. But clinically significant pneumonitis occurred in much smaller fraction and the ICAM-1 expression on AM and the sICAM-1 level in serum were good indicator of it.