Challenges of Conducting Risk‐Benefit Analysis of Early Phase Clinical Trials: Results of a National Survey of IRB Chairs

ABSTRACT Institutional review boards (IRBs) are charged with conducting risk‐benefit analysis for early phase clinical trials that often involve high levels of uncertainty regarding a trial's potential risks and benefits. Our study used a survey of IRB chairs to explore how IRBs conduct risk‐benefit analysis, the unique facets of risk‐benefit analysis for early phase clinical trials and specifically for early phase neurology trials, and what facilitates high‐quality risk‐benefit analysis. The survey measured IRB chairs’ perceived difficulty, preparedness, processes, and satisfaction with risk‐benefit analysis for early phase trials. The survey was completed by 148 of the 259 eligible IRB chairs for a response rate of 64.6%. Two‐thirds of respondents found risk‐benefit analysis for early phase clinical trials more challenging than for later phase trials. Ninety‐one percent of respondents felt that their IRB did an “excellent” or “very good” job conducting risk‐benefit analysis, but more than one‐third of respondents did not feel “very prepared” to conduct key aspects of risk‐benefit analysis. Over two‐thirds of respondents reported that additional resources, like a standardized process for conducting risk‐benefit analysis, would be mostly or very valuable. Our results suggest that conducting risk‐benefit analysis for early phase clinical trials generally and early phase neurology trials specifically is challenging for IRBs. One‐third of respondents reported that they lack preparation for assessing the scientific value of these types of trials and the risks and benefits to research participants, and a majority desire additional support.

• Publication year

  2025

• Venue

  Ethics & Human Research

• Publication date

  2025-11-01

• Fields of study

  Medicine

• Identifiers
  DOI 10.1002/eahr.60024PMID 41222508PMCID 12609048
• External record

  Open on Semantic Scholar

• Source metadata

  Semantic Scholar, PubMed

• No claims are published for this paper.

• No concepts are published for this paper.

• Preclinical assessment for translation to humans: The PATH approach for assessing supporting evidence for early-phase trials and innovative care.

  2024cited by this paper
• Exception From Informed Consent: How IRB Reviewers Assess Community Consultation and Public Disclosure

  2020cited by this paper
• The bench is closer to the bedside than we think: Uncovering the ethical ties between preclinical researchers in translational neuroscience and patients in clinical trials

  2018cited by this paper
• The Role of Intuition in Risk/Benefit Decision-Making in Human Subjects Research

  2017cited by this paper
• Consider drug efficacy before first-in-human trials

  2017cited by this paper
• Authorization of Animal Experiments Is Based on Confidence Rather than Evidence of Scientific Rigor

  2016cited by this paper
• Assessing risk/benefit for trials using preclinical evidence: a proposal

  2015cited by this paper
• A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review

  2015cited by this paper
• Industry Relationships Among Academic Institutional Review Board Members: Changes From 2005 Through 2014.

  2015cited by this paper
• Distinguishing between Exploratory and Confirmatory Preclinical Research Will Improve Translation

  2014cited by this paper
• The Need for Randomization in Animal Trials: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

  2014cited by this paper
• Evaluation of Excess Significance Bias in Animal Studies of Neurological Diseases

  2013cited by this paper
• How Closely Do Institutional Review Boards Follow the Common Rule?

  2012cited by this paper
• Views and Experiences of IRBs concerning Research Integrity

  2011cited by this paper
• A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn

  2011cited by this paper
• A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research

  2011cited by this paper
• Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial

  2010cited by this paper
• Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts.

  2009cited by this paper
• Cell-based interventions for neurologic conditions

  2008cited by this paper
• A qualitative study of institutional review board members’ experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent

  2007cited by this paper
• Ethical attitudes of nurse, physician, and unaffiliated members of institutional review boards.

  2007cited by this paper
• Gene therapy for severe combined immunodeficiency: are we there yet?

  2007cited by this paper
• Making Risk-Benefit Assessments of Medical Research Protocols

  2004cited by this paper

• No citing papers are available for this paper.