Researcher Knowledge, Attitudes, and Communication Practices for Genomic Data Sharing

This study examines knowledge, attitudes, and communication practices toward genomic data sharing among principal investigators and research coordinators engaged in cancer and non-cancer studies. We conducted 25 individual semi-structured interviews and conducted a qualitative thematic analysis. Most interviewees had basic knowledge of data sharing requirements, but lacked specific details of recent changes to NIH policy. Principal investigators perceived more risks to participants for data sharing than the research coordinators who generally obtained consent. Interviewees perceived a trend toward providing fewer data sharing options to participants in the consent process, and had observed that parents of pediatric patients asked more questions than adult patients. Our findings highlight potential areas for improvement related to data sharing during consent processes.

2557 Improving ClinicalTrials.gov compliance: A coordinated effort for success

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: ClinicalTrials.gov (CTgov) compliance has received much international attention as a significant regulatory, scientific, and ethical responsibility. Compliance rates for both industry and academia are held up for scrutiny by transparency advocates, but solutions for achieving compliance in academia have proven to be—because of its focus on innovation and multiple disciplines—significantly more complex than those employed by industry. Added challenges for academic medical centers (AMCs) are both increased researcher responsibilities under the new NIH Policy on Clinical Trial Dissemination and system-wide changes to requirements for “clinical trial only” Funding Opportunity Announcements. At Stanford University, a multifaceted approach toward improving CTgov outreach, education, and reporting led to a dramatic turnaround in compliance over 17-month period. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Stanford University School of Medicine’s Senior Associate Dean for Research and PI of Stanford’s CTSA applied a 3-part strategy to address unacceptable rates of results reporting. The strategy included (1) regular compliance reports to department chairs, (2) establishment of a central office, Clinical Research Quality (CRQ), to provide consistent training and support, and (3) interdepartmental cooperation across the school and university. Compliance reports, identifying all studies late for results reporting were sent monthly to all department chairs, with heightened focus on departments that conduct the most clinical trials. Senior leadership described the process in executive meetings and set improvement goals. Reports included multiple data points to help departments mobilize resources and identify trends; half-way through the period, soon-to-be late study records were included. CRQ hired 2 fulltime employees tasked with all aspects of managing the CTgov process and designed a portfolio of activities including: (1) a master list of all Stanford studies in the CTgov system; (2) a process for generating and distributing monthly reports; (3) an education program; and (4) support services, including an administrator working group. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since December 2015, Stanford has had the second-highest compliance rate improvement out of the 20 schools of medicine that receive the most NIH funding (+ 62%). DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Managing ClinicalTrials.gov compliance requires a high degree of technical knowledge of regulations, NIH policy, and the CTgov system. But without an equally high degree of engagement from senior leadership, results would not have been achieved. Central resources are critical to set policy and establish consistent processes, but without regular and repeated interactions between faculty, a multitude of administrators and staff, more central resources would have been required. By working simultaneously “down from the top” and “up from the bottom,” communication and education expanded rapidly, ineffective efforts were quickly transformed, and what began as an irritating and cumbersome problem became an occasion for collaboration and celebration of increased transparency.

Leading the way: The National Cancer Institute’s (NCI) single IRB for multi-site research.

e18259 Background: NCI instituted a Central IRB (CIRB) with voluntary participation in 2001 for its late-phase trials and demonstrated that efficiency could be improved and costs reduced (Wagner et al JCO, 2010; 28). As a forerunner to the new NIH policy for single IRBs for all NIH multi-site trials (Hudson et al. JAMA Oct 4, 2010), NCI implemented a new CIRB model in 2014 where the CIRB was the IRB of record. We report adoption data of the new model within NCI’s National Clinical Trials Network (NCTN) and lessons learned from the rollout. Methods: We reviewed: Annual CIRB participant data from 2013-2016; site/accrual data for late phase trials activated between 2013-2016 (N = 64) via CIRB or local IRBs; and data from CIRB reports to identify acceptance and lessons learned. We compared time required for CIRB protocol reviews via the new model to baseline measures in the literature. Results: Of the 2,300 U.S. NCTN sites, the percentage of participation went from 47% in 2013, to 74% (2014), 79% (2015), and 81% (2016). For activated trials, a median of 43% of sites used their local IRB in 2013, dropping to 18% in 2014, 5% in 2015, and only 1% in 2016; i.e., 99% of sites opening trials in 2016 did so using the CIRB. Annual accrual to NCTN trials remained steady through the CIRB adoption; CIRB sites represented a median of 56% of total accrual in 2013 increasing to 87% in 2016. Help-desk and survey data indicate increased acceptance and a reduction of concerns over the 3 years. Previous analyses prior to 2013 reported a median of 70-123 days required from protocol application receipt to final CIRB approval; the new model reports a median of 41 days in 2016. Conclusions: NCI has demonstrated that a single IRB for multi-site trials is not only viable but valuable. Its new CIRB model rollout over 3 years has resulted in a doubling of site adoption, high utilization rates, further efficiencies, and overall acceptance, with no noticeable effect on overall NCTN accrual. Our experiences provide important lessons learned and insights into the successful implementation of a single IRB at a national level, and support the feasibility of NIH’s recently finalized policy requiring all sites to use a single IRB for multi-site research.

A Discussion on Experiments and Experimentation: NIH to Balance Sex in Cell and Animal Studies

In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposed a new policy to promote “sex parity” in research. As an extension to the 1993 NIH Revitalization Act which mandated the inclusion of women and minorities in clinical trials, the new NIH policy will require scientists to include “sex” as a variable in both animal model and in vitro cell line-based research. The end goal is to ensure that NIH funded scientists “balance male and female cells and animals in preclinical studies in all future applications” (Clayton and Collins 2014, 283). The curators of this section asked four interdisciplinary scholars to discuss this proposed policy.