1 / 22

Conducting Research during Public Health Emergencies

Conducting Research during Public Health Emergencies. RADM Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH October 30, 2007 SACHRP Panel on Disaster Research. CDC’s Mission. … "to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability." Strategic imperative:

Download Presentation

Conducting Research during Public Health Emergencies

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Conducting Research during Public Health Emergencies RADM Ali S. Khan, MD, MPH October 30, 2007 SACHRP Panel on Disaster Research

  2. CDC’s Mission … "to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability." Strategic imperative: Public Health Research: Create and disseminate the knowledge and innovations people need to protect their health now and in the future.

  3. Public Health Emergencies • Outbreaks • Natural disasters • Biological, chemical or nuclear terrorism • Other public health threats

  4. Defining non-research activities in the context of emergency response • CDC’s 1999 guidance document • Most activities during emergency responses tend to be non-research • Purpose is not to contribute to generalizable knowledge • Purpose is to gain the information needed to solve an immediate threat

  5. Non-research • Hurricane Katrina • Environmental assessments • Surveillance • SARS • Case finding • Virus characterization • Assay development

  6. Research determination To prevent mis-labeling of research as non-research… • Determination is the responsibility of each National Center • Not investigator driven • Associate Director for Science and the Human Subjects Contact • Research protocols are submitted for IRB review • Emergency IRB review option

  7. Why conduct research during emergencies? • Sometimes research is an appropriate response tool • Other times, emergencies present a unique opportunity to gain knowledge • Public health imperative • Be mindful that research is a privilege! • There is a fine line between opportunity and exploitation.

  8. Defining research in the context of emergency response • Response activities that could be considered research • Additional analyses beyond those needed to solve the immediate health problem • Investigation of a non-standard intervention or comparison of standard interventions • Storage of specimens for future use in research • Long-term epidemiologic follow-up

  9. Research as a response tool: Rift Valley Fever • Suspect Ribavirin may be effective treatment based on animal models • Efficacy had not been demonstrated • Placebo-controlled trial proved Ribavirin was not effective treatment and uncovered side effects

  10. Public Health Imperative World Trade center • 1993 – Case control study to determine risk factors for smoke-related morbidity • Identified factors related to evacuation and safety systems • Recommendations from this study led to significant improvements, saving lives in the 2001 attack • 2001 – Biomonitoring study of firefighters to determine contaminant exposures • Included comparison group of unexposed firefighters

  11. Unique opportunities: Ebola & SARS • Ebola • Phage display libraries • Human monocolonal antibodies • SARS • Follow up of pregnant mothers and their infants • Continued development of laboratory assays • Follow up studies of persistence of anti-SARS antibodies

  12. Challenges to getting emergency research approved • Delays of convening an IRB during an emergency and timeliness of review • Timeliness of multiple IRB review • Requirement for Federal-wide assurances

  13. Missed opportunities: Monkeypox and SARS • Natural History Study – Monkey Pox • Transmission dynamics and risk among specific populations

  14. Potential solutions: Obtaining IRB review • Standing or “just in case” protocols • Lacks flexibility • Cannot anticipate all possible emergencies • IRBs are hesitant to approve • Can be burdensome to maintain • Emergency IRB review • Can be difficult to attain quorum on short notice

  15. “Just-in-Case” • SARS: following the SARS outbreak, investigators developed a protocol to cover all of the things they would like to study the next time SARS came around… • Prepared all data collection instruments in advance • Prepared consent forms • Obtained IRB approval • Shared with State health departments

  16. Possible solutions:multiple sites • Simultaneous IRB review • Differing interpretation of regulatory requirements • Centralized IRB review • Requires IRB Authorization Agreement and amending FWA • Does not adequately consider local context

  17. Possible Solutions: FWAs • Unaffiliated investigator agreement • Applicability is limited • Can be burdensome if needed for a large number of investigators

  18. Possible regulatory solutions • Designate exemption category for research during emergencies under 46.101(b) • Waive applicability of regs for emergency research as a class under the provision for Secretarial waiver, 45 CFR 46.101(i) No IRB review ≠ No ethical consideration! Currently at CDC: Exemptions under 101(b) are made at the Agency level, and are reviewed by both the Center ADS and the Human Research Protection Manager

  19. Possible regulatory solutions • Allow expedited review of greater than minimal risk research during emergencies (to be followed by convened review as soon as is feasible)

  20. Possible regulatory solutions: multiple sites • Pre-designation of CDC IRB as central IRB for public health emergencies • Allow for informal IRB reliance relationships during emergencies • Without IRB Authorization Agreement • Without amending FWA • Suspend FWA requirement • Allow local sites to engage in HHS-conducted research without FWA during emergencies

  21. Additional considerations • Coordination with local health departments • Local context • Integration of local investigators • Prevent duplication of activities • Anticipation and planning • Prepare protocols in advance • Community pre-consent • Standing pre-event committees

  22. Laura Youngblood Lauren Stockman Drue Barrett Tom Sinks Susan Stokes Rita Helfand Inger Damon Robin Ikeda Mike McGeehin Dan Sosin Mike Gerber Lisa Lee Dixie Snider Acknowledgements

More Related