Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) instigated a flurry of clinical research activity. The unprecedented pace with which trials were launched left an early void in data standardization, limiting the potential for subsequent data pooling. To facilitate data standardization across emerging studies, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) charged two groups with harmonizing data collection, and these groups collaborated to create a concise set of COVID-19 Common Data Elements (CDEs) for clinical research.

Our iterative approach followed three guiding principles: 1) draw from existing multi-center COVID-19 clinical trials as precedents, 2) incorporate existing data elements and data standards whenever possible, and 3) alignment to data standards that facilitate data sharing and regulatory submission. We also supported rapid implementation of the CDEs in NHLBI-funded studies and iteratively refined the CDEs based on feedback from those study teams

The NHLBI COVID-19 CDEs are publicly available and being used for current COVID-19 clinical trials. CDEs are organized into domains, and each data element is classified within a three-tiered prioritization system. The CDE manual is hosted publicly at https://nhlbi-connects.org/common_data_elements with an accompanying data dictionary and implementation guidance.

The NHLBI COVID-19 CDEs are designed to aid data harmonization across studies to achieve the benefits of pooled analyses. We found that organizing CDE development around our three guiding principles focused our efforts and allowed us to adapt as COVID-19 knowledge advanced. As these CDEs continue to evolve, they could be generalized for use in other acute respiratory illnesses.

The goal of clinical and translational science (CTS) is to fill gaps in medical knowledge toward improving human health. However, one of our most pressing challenges does not reside within the biological map we navigate to find sustainable cures but rather the moral compass to recognize and overcome racial and ethnic injustices that continue to influence our society and hinder diverse research rigor. The Georgetown-Howard Universities Center for Clinical and Translational Science includes an inter-institutional TL1-funded training program for predoctoral/postdoctoral trainees in Translational Biomedical Science (TBS).

In the fall of 2020, the TBS program responded to the national social justice crisis by incorporating a curriculum focused on structural racism in biomedical research. Educational platforms, including movie reviews, Journal Clubs, and other workshops, were threaded throughout the curriculum by ensuring safe spaces to discuss racial and ethnic injustices and providing trainees with practical steps to recognize, approach, and respond to these harmful biases in the CTS. Workshops also focused on why individuals underrepresented in science are vital for addressing and closing gaps in CTS.

Paring analysis using REDCap software de-identified participants after invitations were sent and collected in the system to maintain anonymity for pre- and post-analysis. The Likert scale evaluated respondents’ understanding of diverse scientific circumstances. The pre/Fall and post/Spring surveys suggested this curriculum was successful at raising institutional awareness of racial and ethnic biases. Evaluating the effectiveness of our program with other training Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) consortiums will strengthen both the academic and professional TBS programs.

The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has changed over the last decade.

The survey instrument was based on the survey previously circulated. We included a number of survey domains from the previous survey with the goal of direct comparison of outcomes. The survey was sent to 57 RECS in the USA and Canada.

Forty-nine surveys were completed for an overall response rate of 86%. With the passing of 10 years, the volume of consults received by RECS surveyed has increased. The number of consults received by a subset of RECS remains low. RECS continues to receive requests for consults from a wide range of stakeholders. About a quarter of RECS surveyed actively evaluate their services, primarily through satisfaction surveys routinely shared with requestors. The number of RECS evaluating their services has increased. We identified a group of eight key competencies respondents find as key to providing RECS.

The findings from our survey demonstrate that there have been growth and development of RECS since 2010. Further developing evaluation and competency guidelines will help existing RECS continue to grow and facilitate newly established RECS maturation. Both will allow RECS personnel to better serve their institutions and add value to the research conducted.