Recent changes to the Common Rule, which govern Institutional Review Boards (IRB), require implementing new policies to strengthen research protocols involving human subjects. A major challenge in implementing such policies is an inability to automatically and consistently meet these ethical rules while securing sensitive information collected during the study. In this paper, we propose a novel framework, based on blockchain technology, to enforce IRB regulations on data collection. We demonstrate how to design smart contracts and a ledger to meet the requirements of an IRB protocol, including subject recruitment, informed consent management, secondary data sharing, monitoring risks, and generating automated assessments for continuous review. Furthermore, we show how we can employ the immutable transaction log in the blockchain to embed security in research activities by detecting malicious activities and robustly tracking subject involvement. We evaluate our approach by assessing its ability to enforce IRB guidelines in different types of human subjects studies, including a genomic study, a drug trial, and a wearable sensor monitoring study. Keywords: Blockchain, Data Sharing, Data Exchange, EHR, electronic health record, Ethereum, interplanetary filesystem, IPFS
Nijhawan L, Janodia M, Muddukrishna B, Bhat K, Bairy K, Udupa N. Informed consent: Issues and challenges. J Adv Pharm Technol Res. 2013;(3):134–40.
3.
Gupta U. Informed consent in clinical research: Revisiting few concepts and areas. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;
4.
Department of Health and Human Services. Code Fed Regul. 2018;7149–274.
5.
Portier W, Dunne C. Current Challenges and Opportunities in Clinical Research Compliance. Ochsner J. 2006;(1):21–4.
6.
Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. 2008;
7.
Mettler M. Blockchain technology in healthcare: The revolution starts here. 2016;1–3.
8.
Yue X, Wang H, Li J, Jiang M, W. Healthcare data gateways: found healthcare intelligence on blockchain with novel privacy risk control. J Med Syst. 2016;(10):218.
9.
Irving G, Holden J. How blockchaintimestamped protocols could improve the trustworthiness of medical science. F1000Research. 2016;
10.
Nugent T, Upton D, Cimpoesu M. Improving data transparency in clinical trials using blockchain smart contracts. F1000Research. 2016;
11.
Ekblaw A, Azaria A, Halamka J, Lippman A. MedRec" prototype for electronic health records and medical research data. 2016;
12.
Azaria A, Ekblaw A, Vieira T, Medrec L. Using blockchain for medical data access and permission management. 2016;25–30.
13.
Genestier P, Zouarhi S, Limeux P, Excoffier D, Prola A, Sandon S. Blockchain for Consent Management in the eHealth Environment: A Nugget for Privacy and Security Challenges. J Int Soc Telemed eHealth. 2017;21–4.
14.
Title 45 Part 46. Department of Health and Human Services. Code Fed Regul. 2009;
15.
Budin-Ljøsne I, Teare H, Kaye J, Beck S, Bentzen H, Caenazzo L. Dynamic Consent: A potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2017;(1).
16.
Dwork C, Naor M. Pricing via Processing or Combatting Junk Mail. 1992;139–47.
17.
Vasin P. BlackCoin’s Proof-of-Stake Protocol v2. 2014;
18.
Proof of Elapsed Time (PoET). 2017;
19.
Baliga A. Compliance Oversight Procedures for Evaluating Institutions. 2017;
20.
Buterin V. A next-generation smart contract and decentralized application platform. Etherum. 2014;1–36.
21.
Fabric H. 2017;
22.
Vukolić M. Rethinking Permissioned Blockchains. Proc ACM Work Blockchain, Cryptocurrencies Contract -BCC ’17. 2017;3–7.
23.
Li W, Sforzin A, Fedorov S, Karame G. Towards scalable and private industrial blockchains. 2017;9–14.
24.
Lo B. Sharing clinical trial data: maximizing benefits, minimizing risk. JAMA. 2015;(8):793–4.
25.
Dressler L. Disclosure of research results from cancer genomic studies: state of the science. Clin Cancer Res. 2009;(13):4270–6.
26.
Chan AW, Tetzlaff J, Altman D, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche P, Krleža-Jerić K. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;(3):200–7.
27.
De Lima S, Hahn A, De Vries T, Cohen N, Bataille E, Little L, et al. Large-Scale wearable sensor deployment in Parkinson’s patients: The Parkinson@Home Study Protocol. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;(3):172.
28.
Guidance for IRBs, clinical investigators, and sponsors, US Department of Health and Human Services and Food and Drug Administration and others. IRB Contin Rev after Clin Investig Approv Silver Spring. 2012;
Citation
Copyright
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
