Clinical trials in India

Last updated

Clinical trials in India refers to clinical research in India in which researchers test drugs and other treatments on research participants. NDCTR 2019 and section 3.7.1 to 3.7.3 of ICMR guidelines [1] requires that all researchers conducting a clinical trial must publicly document it in the Clinical Trials Registry - India. [2]

Contents

Flowchart of Clinical Trials in India Clinical Trials in India.jpg
Flowchart of Clinical Trials in India

Various government agencies and laws regulate clinical trials. The Drugs Controller General of India grants approval for clinical trials and is the top level authority which specifically oversees clinical trials. [3] The Drugs Controller is a part of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation and answers to that organization. [3] Both of those organizations answer the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as the highest level government agency overseeing everything related to medicine and health. [3] The Indian Council of Medical Research governs the professional and ethical behavior of the doctors and scientists. The Pharmacovigilance Program of India tracks reports of harm from the use of drugs. Outside of the central government, each state has its own regional regulatory agencies with some input into governing trials.

Since the early 2000s there have been international discussions from science, medicine, and business sectors which observed that India is both an attractive and challenging place to conduct medical research. [4] Favorable characteristics of India included that there are many trained workers including health professionals, there is a large and diverse population, and that the cost of research is relatively low in India in comparison to other countries capable of doing research. [4] Challenging characteristics include lack of research capacity, evolving and uncertain government regulatory infrastructure, diversity of languages, and the need for a culture of research participant confidentiality. [4]

In the years around 2010 there were various scandals in media and popular discussion in which companies conducted clinical trials in unethical ways. There were many discussions raising many complaints, including that researchers were not getting informed consent from research participants, and that the medical research was dismissing high rates of injury and death among research participants. Following the 2013 case Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India in the Supreme Court of India, various government agencies reformed their regulations to make clinical trials more ethical. [5] There have been many changes with various responses. Among the responses, some say that the clinical trials are safer for participants, and others say that the new rules favor large domestic and international companies over other stakeholders.

Government regulation

Since 2009 the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization has mandated that anyone conducting clinical research in India must preregister in the Clinical Trials Registry – India before enrolling any research participants. [6]

Various government agencies and laws regulate clinical trials. The Drugs Controller General of India grants approval for clinical trials and is the top level authority which specifically oversees clinical trials. [3] The Drugs Controller is a part of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation and answers to that organization. [3] Both of those organizations answer the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare as the highest level government agency overseeing everything related to medicine and health. [3] The Indian Council of Medical Research governs the professional and ethical behavior of the doctors and scientists. The Pharmacovigilance Program of India tracks reports of harm from the use of drugs. [7]

Before 2005 India had a "phase lag" policy for clinical trials from foreign countries. [8] In this policy, all clinical research in India had to begin at phase one. [8] A 2005 change to liberalize the policy begin allowing companies to skip earlier phase trials to start with more risky trials in India, if there was prior research doing those earlier trials in another country. [8]

Clinical trials have to be monitored by an ethics committee which registers with the government. [9] A study examining all registered ethics committees in 2017 reported that few of them were in academic medical institutions, which is the global norm and desirable for such organizations. [9]

Some legal commentators describe how the Constitution of India provides fundamental rights in India which apply to participants in clinical trials. [10]

Overview of trials

Various reports have discussed the number of clinical trials which the Indian government has approved per year. [11] A theme of these reports is that the number of trials generally increases, and that changes in the rates of the number of trials approved corresponds with regulatory changes. [11] [12] [13]

Count of clinical trial approvals [12]
YearTrials
200865
2009391
2010500
2011262

The government approval process for clinical trials is sporadic. A 2013 report commented that in one day, the Indian government approved 50 trials after not having approved any in the past six months. [12] The same report noted that the rate of government approval changes by year. [12]

A single study examining a sample of academic papers which reported the results of dentistry-related clinical trials in 2011-12 found that the reporting was poor. [14]

Ethics

Various commentators have noted that there is a conflict between the opportunity for business investors to conduct research in India and the rights and safety of the volunteer research participants who participate in these clinical trials. [15] Discussions of this issue often propose some kind of balance where researchers do trials, but not too many or too quickly, and that the trials collectively support ethical and safety practices which community stakeholders, academic researchers, doctors, and the government all create together. [15]

Wealthy companies in countries with strong economies routinely seek to purchase clinical trial research in India as they seek comparable results at lower cost. [16] As the wealthy country has the power of its money, and as typical participants in clinical trials are volunteers with no understanding of the money involved or power dynamics, many ethical issues arise. [16]

A 2018 study on informed consent found that in a set of cancer-related trials, nearly all research participants had serious misconceptions about their research participation. [17] A common misconception was an expectation of improved health care. [17] The study recommended improved research participant education as a way to make the management of trials more ethical. [17]

Government talks of permitting human challenge studies in India began in 2017. [18] The Translational Health Science and Technology Institute expressed support for allowing these trials at that time. [18]

One 2015 audit of 5 years of trials at a single site found that the expected percentage of people invited to participate declined to do so. [19] That study said that this rate of refusal was an indication of an appropriate level of persuasiveness in study participant recruitment. [19]

An evaluation of about 50 clinical trials in 2007-08 found that the reported results had higher than expected rates of false positive errors due to the statistical methods the researchers used. [20]

Comparison to other countries

India's clinical research is a subject of comparison with that of China, [16] [4] [21] countries in Africa, [22] [23] and countries with similarly sized economies. [16] India is both an attractive and challenging place for both Indian and foreign clinical research for various reasons. [4]

A common motivation for foreign companies doing research in India is relatively lower cost in as compared to comparable research elsewhere. [4] [24] India was a single nation with a large, diverse population. [24] Many potential research participants in India had not previously had medical treatment, and clinical trials get better data from such people. [24] India also has a well trained workforce and many research sites which met international good clinical practice standards. [24] India's national health system provides a lot of care in large urban hospitals. [4] This centralization is also favorable to conducting research. [4]

One challenge to doing research is a shortage of research sites which could conduct research and expand the sector. [4] This shortage has various causes, including lack of educational programmes leading health professionals into research as a career track, the lack of experienced administrators who could expand study capacity, and a national research environment with either insufficient quality control processes. [4]

When researchers conduct trials in multiple countries collecting patient-reported outcomes is useful. [25] However, to make sense of any such reports from India, then researchers have to adapt the instructions for local Indian culture. [25]

A 2011 evaluation found that a sample of clinical trials in India complied with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. [26]

To make India more compliant with international standards the government amended the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 in 2005 and 2008. [26]

At the end of 2010 India was conducting 7% of phase III and 3% of phase II trials globally. [26] In 2019 India was hosting about 1% of the world's clinical trials. [27]

Social awareness

There was perception in the research community that the media had usefully brought public scrutiny of the ethics and conduct of clinical trials. [24] While researchers and investors wanted trials, they also wanted a reliable research environment which the public and media could trust. [24] Various changes in government regulation sought to make trials safer for research participants and investment in trials. [24] The response to having changes in general was positive, although there was intense debate from stakeholders on the individual changes. [24] The criticism tended to argue that the changes were too strict. [24]

There was criticism that medical journals in India were publishing the results of trials without requiring that the articles describe compliance with regulatory standards including Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. [26] [28]

Injury

In 2013 the Supreme Court of India ordered the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare to police and prevent multinational companies from conducting illegal clinical trials in India. [29] [5]

There is public information reporting how many people die during clinical trials. [30] It is also known that when people die during trials in India, the trial organization rarely pays compensation to the family of the deceased. [30]

The research industry has formulas for calculating how much money to pay when someone dies in a clinical trial. [31]

Foreign influence

A 2011 paper noted that low operational costs, improved government regulation, and existing business infrastructure have made India increasingly attractive as a place for foreign companies to conduct clinical trials. [7]

Some clinical trials based in the United States also do research in India. A 2019 examination of 10 years of United States children's health research found that of about 9000 trials registered about 120 of them also included clinical trials in India. [32] This study found that these trials were for health issues which actually affect children in India, and that consequently, the research was appropriate for India. [32]

Some researchers study global practices for managing clinical trials and apply lessons learned to multiple countries at once, with India being among them. [33] [34]

When foreign companies conduct only phase III trials in India, the researchers conducting those trials tend to not publish as many scientific insights as researchers typically do in other circumstances. [35] There is a foreign expectation that perhaps because India has relatively less regulation than foreign countries which export clinical research, then perhaps the researchers in India would have more insights. [35] The reasons for this are not clear, but one reason may be that researchers who oversee the trial for longer periods and not just the last phase tend to care more about publishing research results. [35]

When financial investment is the priority then foreign sponsored research tends to focus on the health concerns of the host country rather than the health needs of India. [36] A characteristic of a healthy clinical trials sector in a country is prioritizing the most urgent health concerns of the population. [36] Some researchers advocate for reflection on India's research priorities. [36]

A review of clinical trials from 2006 to 2013 foundation that when India hosted clinical research for either the United States or European Union, and when research in India led to the availability of a new drug in those places, then in 40% of cases India did not also get domestic approval to use that drug. [22] This low rate of domestic drug approval demonstrates that the research is not actually a medical benefit to the local population in India. [22] More frequent drug approvals for drugs tested in India and approved elsewhere would be a public benefit. [22]

Business

Various reports describe the global industry of outsourcing clinical research from one country to another, and present India as one of the lower cost countries for conducting trials. [37]

A 2007 paper reported that in the past few years the annual revenue of the clinical trials industry had grown 25% annually. [38]

Companies conducting clinical trials in India often do so through a contract research organization. [39] Since the 2000s there has been recognition that India is an attractive place to grow an industry of drug research. [39]

A 2008 report described the entry of multinational companies into India for clinical trials research as a frenzy. [40] At the time there was a perception that the industry was going to grow fast for the foreseeable future in a way that favored the research investor. [40] Most investors wished into enter India through contract research organizations. [40]

Foreign investment in India has resulted in a concentration of international research centers in India. [41] Larger research companies are growing faster than small ones, and larger ones are capturing the influence to propose government regulations more quickly than other stakeholder groups. [41] The investment from foreign companies has resulted in more education, professional training, and jobs in the clinical research sector. [41] However, there has been an obvious sudden increase of influence by both foreign and domestic large companies as this research field has developed. [41]

The establishment of the Pharmacovigilance Program made India a more attractive international destination for foreign companies to bring clinical trials research. [7]

History

Until 1995 the United States, Europe, and Japan conducted most clinical trials. [42] The first evaluation of good clinical practices for research in India was done in 1995. [43] A 2004 paper advised that India lacked the research environment which most clinical researchers require. [44] Because of the risks, that paper advised that foreign countries would not gain benefit from outsourcing clinical trials to India. [44]

2005 to 2013

India agreed to comply with the TRIPS Agreement in 2005. [45] The agreement changed the way India recognizes intellectual property and changed the research environment in way that enabled foreign companies to conduct clinical trials in India. [45] [46] Foreign contract research organizations were able to conduct clinical trials in India from this point. [41]

An estimate in 2007 predicted that India would be conducting about 20% of the world's clinical trials by 2010. [42] Further speculation of the time was that India would be the preferred global destination for many sorts of clinical trials. [47] Among all that growth, a major concern was establishing regulation to improve the ethics and integrity of clinical research in India. [42] The Indian Council of Medical Research established the Clinical Trials Registry - India in July 2007 with the intent to improve India's clinical trials research environment. [6]

In 2008 a representative for the Indian Council of Medical Research remarked that increased government regulation would be necessary to ensure research integrity and public safety in clinical trials. [48] In 2008 a group of Indian medical journals made a pledge that from 2010 onward, they would only publish research on clinical trials if that trial was appropriately registered. [49] [48] Prior to this, there were essays considering whether the time was right to do this. [50]

In 2009 there was a significant expansion in clinical trials done in India. [13] Beginning in 2013 there were many regulatory changes which had the effect of reducing the number of clinical trials while also drawing attention to ethical challenges of clinical research in India. [13]

In May 2012 the 59th report of the Indian Parliamentary Standing Committee on Health and Family Welfare issued a report criticized the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. The report complained that the organization was underfunded and understaffed. [51] Because of lack of staff, the organization would never be able to perform its duties. [51] The staff who were there were working under a misguided mandate to "meet the aspirations … demands and requirements of the pharmaceutical industry", which was an error and a conflict of interest against protecting the health of the public. [51] Another problem that the report identified was that although India requires drug companies to conduct at least phase III trials in India if other countries have already approved the drug, for some undocumented reason, the Drugs Controller was granting approvals without this research. [51] Also, in 3 cases, drugs which neither had approval in other countries nor trials in India got approval for undocumented reasons. [51]

2013 to 2019

By 2013 the problems with clinical trials had become troublesome to the point of media and public attention. [52] When the media criticized trials, those reports tended to say that the researchers were exploiting the research participants by treating them as experimental guinea pigs. [24] The media attention and public discussion resulted in researchers conducting fewer trails. [24] The number of trials went from 529 in 2010, to about 250 in 2012, to about 100 in 2013. [24]

The response to this was that various government agencies organized regulatory changes to resolve many problems at once. [52] [53] Researchers reflected on the causes of the problems, and the necessary changes to prevent future problems, and the regulatory reform which would support the changes in science and industry. [52] [53]

One change was that the government named a list of responsibilities and divided among the ethics committee, the investigator, and the sponsor. [53] This way, each of those agents in a clinical trial take responsibility for their parts. [53] From this point the researchers must register all clinical trials into the Clinical Trials Registry - India. [24] Another change was that ethics committees associated with clinical trials had to themselves register with the Drugs Controller General of India. [24] The informed consent process had to include all information both in the text document and a verbal description. [24] [53] No principal investigator can oversee more than three trials at once. [24] Anyone funding a principal investigator has to disclose to the government how much they are paying. [24] The government regulator set up audit process for ethics committees. [24] The researchers must report serious adverse events quickly to the study sponsor, the ethics committee, and the government regulator. [24] [53] All trials will comply with publicly available payment formulas for calculating how much money to give in case of someone dying or experiencing any other serious adverse effect. [24] [53]

In the informed consent process there was consensus for addressing some communication issues. [24] One was explaining that the control group in a placebo-controlled study will get no treatment. [24] Another was explaining that the drug candidate is experimental, and not necessarily an effective therapy. [24] There was also recognition that many administrative, procedural, and reporting functions needed national standardization. [24]

In 2018 the government established a process for approving drugs in India, without clinical trials, in exceptional circumstances such as an epidemic. [54]

2019—present

In 2019 the government enacted the New drugs and clinical trials rules 2019. [55] These rules provided more guidance for how the ethics committee of a clinical trial should oversee it. [55] Critics of the rules said that the government compromised public safety in favor of industry and financial interests. [56]

Special populations

When Indian people consider volunteering for clinical trials they frequently have the same reasons for either joining or declining. [57] Motivations for joining include intent to gain health benefit, altruism, in respect of the request of their physician, to get money for participating, and to get an opportunity to learn more about health and research. [57] Reasons for not wanting to participate in a trial include mistrust of the organizations managing the research, fear of trial risks, stress, the obligation of participating, fear that the trial will not respect their personal information, creating a burden on their friends and families to support them in the trial, and the lack of available information about the research in their own local language. [57]

People with schizophrenia require specific cultural support to participate in clinical trials. [58]

A 2009 report described how innovation in phase 1 cancer research trials could have a big impact on Indian health. [59]

Various studies in the United Kingdom have described how British researchers can make trial participation easier for South Asian people living in the UK. [60] [61]

A 2011 report encouraged teaching clinical research in the curriculum of medical students to prepare them to conduct trials. [62]

A 2019 survey found that respondents in India were cautious in saying that they would approve of clinical trials related to the sexual health of adolescent girls. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures or other medical treatments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clinical trial</span> Phase of clinical research in medicine

Clinical trials are prospective biomedical or behavioral research studies on human participants designed to answer specific questions about biomedical or behavioral interventions, including new treatments and known interventions that warrant further study and comparison. Clinical trials generate data on dosage, safety and efficacy. They are conducted only after they have received health authority/ethics committee approval in the country where approval of the therapy is sought. These authorities are responsible for vetting the risk/benefit ratio of the trial—their approval does not mean the therapy is 'safe' or effective, only that the trial may be conducted.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human subject research</span> Systematic, scientific investigation that involves human beings as research subjects

Human subject research is systematic, scientific investigation that can be either interventional or observational and involves human beings as research subjects, commonly known as test subjects. Human subject research can be either medical (clinical) research or non-medical research. Systematic investigation incorporates both the collection and analysis of data in order to answer a specific question. Medical human subject research often involves analysis of biological specimens, epidemiological and behavioral studies and medical chart review studies. On the other hand, human subject research in the social sciences often involves surveys which consist of questions to a particular group of people. Survey methodology includes questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups.

An institutional review board (IRB), also known as an independent ethics committee (IEC), ethical review board (ERB), or research ethics board (REB), is a committee at an institution that applies research ethics by reviewing the methods proposed for research done at that institution to ensure that the projects are ethical. Such boards are formally designated to approve, monitor, and review biomedical and behavioral research involving humans, and they are legally required in some countries under certain specified circumstances. Most countries use some form of IRB to safeguard ethical conduct of research so that it complies with national and international norms, regulations or codes.

An adverse event (AE) is any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have a causal relationship with this treatment. An adverse event can therefore be any unfavourable and unintended sign, symptom, or disease temporally associated with the use of a medicinal (investigational) product, whether or not related to the medicinal (investigational) product.

<i>PLOS Medicine</i> Academic journal

PLOS Medicine is a peer-reviewed weekly medical journal covering the full spectrum of the medical sciences. It began operation on October 19, 2004, as the second journal of the Public Library of Science (PLOS), a non-profit open access publisher. All content in PLOS Medicine is published under the Creative Commons "by-attribution" license. To fund the journal, the publication's business model requires in most cases that authors pay publication fees. The journal was published online and in a printed format until 2005 and is now only published online. The journal's acting chief editor is Clare Stone, who replaced the previous chief editor, Larry Peiperl, in 2018.

The Declaration of Helsinki is a set of ethical principles regarding human experimentation developed originally in 1964 for the medical community by the World Medical Association (WMA). It is widely regarded as the cornerstone document on human research ethics.

A pilot experiment, pilot study, pilot test or pilot project is a small-scale preliminary study conducted to evaluate feasibility, duration, cost, adverse events, and improve upon the study design prior to performance of a full-scale research project.

Clinical research is a branch of healthcare science that determines the safety and effectiveness (efficacy) of medications, devices, diagnostic products and treatment regimens intended for human use. These may be used for prevention, treatment, diagnosis or for relieving symptoms of a disease. Clinical research is different from clinical practice. In clinical practice established treatments are used, while in clinical research evidence is collected to establish a treatment.

Himmatrao Saluba Bawaskar is an Indian physician from Mahad, Maharashtra. He is known for his research on treatment for scorpion stings. Much of his work has been published in the British medical journal The Lancet. He has also conducted research in the fields of snake bites, cardiovascular diseases, and hypothyroidism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ranjit Roy Chaudhury</span>

Ranjit Roy Chaudhury, was an Indian clinical pharmacologist, medical academic and health planner, who headed the National Committee for formulating the policy and guidelines on drugs and clinical trials in India. He was the chairman of the joint programme of World Health Organization and Government of India on Rational Use of Drugs in India. He was the founder president of the Delhi Medical Council and the president of the Delhi Society for Promotion of Rational Use of Drugs.

Blood donations in India are conducted by organisations and hospitals through blood donation camps. Donors can also visit blood banks in hospitals to donate blood. Efforts by the government and advocacy groups over the years have helped bridge the gap between demand and supply. The regulatory framework for blood donation and blood bank management rests with the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation, while technical bodies like the National Blood Transfusion Council and National AIDS Control Organisation formulate guidelines and recommendations for transfusion medicine and blood bank management. Challenges persist with regards to regulation of blood banks and transfusion practices as the sector is largely fragmented with uneven distribution of blood banks and supply of blood in parts of the country. Donors are usually provided with refreshments after the procedure, which include glucose drinks, biscuits and fruits. Some organisations offer transportation facilities, as well as certificates or badges as gratitude.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Conflicts of interest in academic publishing</span>

Conflicts of interest (COIs) often arise in academic publishing. Such conflicts may cause wrongdoing and make it more likely. Ethical standards in academic publishing exist to avoid and deal with conflicts of interest, and the field continues to develop new standards. Standards vary between journals and are unevenly applied. According to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, "[a]uthors have a responsibility to evaluate the integrity, history, practices and reputation of the journals to which they submit manuscripts".

Ethics dumping is a concept in research ethics that describes the export of unethical research practices from higher-income to lower-income settings. Ethics dumping can occur intentionally when researchers knowingly side-step restrictive regulatory regimes to undertake research abroad that would be prohibited in their home setting. It can also occur unintentionally, especially in the context of international research, if researchers lack the knowledge or ethics awareness to undertake studies appropriately in unfamiliar settings.

A human challenge study, also called a challenge trial or controlled human infection model (CHIM), is a type of clinical trial for a vaccine or other pharmaceutical involving the intentional exposure of the test subject to the condition tested. Human challenge studies may be ethically controversial because they involve exposing test subjects to dangers beyond those posed by potential side effects of the substance being tested.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clinical Trials Registry – India</span> Indias clinical trial registry

Clinical Trials Registry – India (CTRI) is the government of India's official clinical trial registry. The National Institute of Medical Statistics of the Indian Council of Medical Research established the CTRI on 20 July 2007. Since 2009 the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization has mandated that anyone conducting clinical trials in India must preregister before enrolling any research participants.

The Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) is an Indian government organization which identifies and responds to drug safety problems. Its activities include receiving reports of adverse drug events and taking necessary action to remedy problems. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation established the program in July 2010 with All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi as the National Coordination Centre, which later shifted to Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission in Ghaziabad on 15 April 2011.

<i>Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India</i> 2013 Supreme Court of India case

Swasthya Adhikar Manch v. Union of India was a 2013 court case in which Swasthya Adhikar Manch requested additional government regulation in the management of clinical trials. The court found in favor of that organization and ordered regulation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Covaxin</span> Vaccine against COVID-19

Covaxin is a whole inactivated virus-based COVID-19 vaccine developed by Bharat Biotech in collaboration with the Indian Council of Medical Research - National Institute of Virology.

Nilima Arun Kshirsagar FACCP, FRCP, FNAMS FNAS is an Indian clinical pharmacologist who developed and patented liposomal amphotericin B and its drug delivery system in 1993. She is the former dean of King Edward Memorial Hospital and Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College. She is the national chairperson in clinical pharmacology at Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) and president of the South Asian chapter of the American college of clinical pharmacology. She is a Member of the WHO Committees on Product development and Drug statistics Methodology.

References

  1. ↑ Indian Council of Medical Research (2017). "National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health Research involving Human Participants" (PDF). Indian Council of Medical Research.
  2. ↑ "Extraordinary" (PDF), The Gazette of India (in Hindi and English), New Delhi: Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, 19 March 2019
  3. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Gogtay, NJ; Ravi, R; Thatte, UM (March 2017). "Regulatory requirements for clinical trials in India: What academicians need to know". Indian Journal of Anaesthesia. 61 (3): 192–199. doi:10.4103/ija.IJA_143_17. PMC   5372399 . PMID   28405032.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Perkovic, V; Patil, V; Wei, L; Lv, J; Petersen, M; Patel, A (18 July 2012). "Global randomized trials: the promise of India and China". Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 94 Suppl 1: 92–6. doi:10.2106/JBJS.L.00274. PMID   22810456.
  5. 1 2 Parishwad, Rajesh (25 January 2013). "Indian supreme court's anger over unregulated clinical trials". Chemistry World. Royal Society of Chemistry.
  6. 1 2 Rao, M. Vishnu Vardhana; Maulik, Mohua; Gupta, Jyotsna; Panchal, Yashmin; Juneja, Atul; Adhikari, Tulsi; Pandey, Arvind (1 July 2018). "Clinical Trials Registry – India: An overview and new developments". Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 50 (4): 208–211. doi:10.4103/ijp.IJP_153_18. ISSN   0253-7613. PMC   6234713 . PMID   30505058.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  7. 1 2 3 Gupta, YK; Padhy, BM (June 2011). "India's growing participation in global clinical trials". Trends in Pharmacological Sciences. 32 (6): 327–9. doi:10.1016/j.tips.2011.02.017. PMID   21489644.
  8. 1 2 3 Mamdani, Bashir; Mamdani, Meenal (October 2005). "Colonialism of clinical trials: discerning the positive spin offs". Indian Journal of Medical Ethics . 2 (4): 132–3. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2005.068 . PMID   16619444.
  9. 1 2 Das, ManojaKumar; Singh, Deepak (2019). "Ethics committee registration and re-registration with the regulatory authority in India". The National Medical Journal of India. 32 (3): 157–160. doi:10.4103/0970-258X.278682. PMID   32129311. S2CID   212406906.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  10. ↑ Ashesh, Ashna; Dash, Zubin (2012). "Inadequacies of Clinical Trial Regulations in India". NUJS Law Review. West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences. 5 (3).
  11. 1 2 Bajpai, Vikas (2013). "Rise of Clinical Trials Industry in India: An Analysis". ISRN Public Health. 2013: 1–17. doi: 10.1155/2013/167059 .
  12. 1 2 3 4 Kay, M. (15 July 2013). "Indian government approves 50 clinical trials in one day". BMJ. 347 (jul15 12): f4455. doi:10.1136/bmj.f4455. PMID   23857992. S2CID   9675349.
  13. 1 2 3 Barnes, Mark; Flaherty, Jamie; Caron, Minal; Naqvee, Alishan; Bierer, Barbara (2018). "The Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Clinical Trials in India". Food and Drug Law Journal. 73 (4): 601–623. ISSN   1064-590X. JSTOR   26826964.
  14. ↑ Vundavalli, S; Naidu, GM; Bhargav, AS; Praveen, BH; Pavani, B; Babburi, S (2016). "Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in ten academic Indian dental journals". Indian Journal of Dental Research. 27 (2): 116–20. doi: 10.4103/0970-9290.183132 . PMID   27237199. S2CID   37215718.
  15. 1 2 Dandona, L (2006). "Clinical trials in India: balancing economic opportunity with the public health context". The National Medical Journal of India. 19 (2): 57–9. PMID   16756189.
  16. 1 2 3 4 Dal-Ré, R; Jha, V; Lv, J; Chaudhury, RR; Wang, Y; Perkovic, V (February 2016). "International trials in middle-income countries: different local scenarios require different ethical approaches". Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 109 (2): 47–51. doi:10.1177/0141076815608854. PMC   4793764 . PMID   26432816.
  17. 1 2 3 Gota, V; Nookala, M; Yadav, A; Menezes, SR; Kannan, S; Ali, R (2018). "Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials in India: A cross-sectional survey". The National Medical Journal of India. 31 (6): 334–338. doi:10.4103/0970-258X.262900. PMID   31397364. S2CID   199026079.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  18. 1 2 Srinivasan, S; Johari, V (2019). "Consultations on human infection studies in India: Do people's voices really count?". Indian Journal of Medical Ethics . 4 (3): 234–237. doi:10.20529/IJME.2019.011. PMID   31213425. S2CID   189672774.
  19. 1 2 Thaker, SJ; Figer, BH; Gogtay, NJ; Thatte, UM (2015). "An audit of consent refusals in clinical research at a tertiary care center in India". Journal of Postgraduate Medicine. 61 (4): 257–63. doi:10.4103/0022-3859.166515. PMC   4943370 . PMID   26440397.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  20. ↑ Jaykaran, G; Kantharia, ND; Preeti, Y; Bharddwaj, P; Goyal, J (June 2010). "Reporting statistics in clinical trials published in Indian journals: a survey". African Health Sciences. 10 (2): 204–7. PMC   2956292 . PMID   21326978.
  21. ↑ Zhang, D; Freemantle, N; Cheng, KK (January 2011). "Are randomized trials conducted in China or India biased? A comparative empirical analysis". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 64 (1): 90–5. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.010. PMID   20554429.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Limaye, D; Langer, JM; Rühling, T; Fortwengel, G (31 August 2015). "A critical appraisal of clinical trials conducted and subsequent drug approvals in India and South Africa". BMJ Open. 5 (8): e007304. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007304. PMC   4554898 . PMID   26324720.
  23. 1 2 Pack, AP; Sastry, J; Tolley, EE; Kaaya, S; Headley, J; Kaale, A; Baumgartner, JN (July 2019). "Stakeholder acceptability of adolescent participation in clinical trials for biomedical HIV prevention products: considerations from Tanzania and India". AIDS Care. 31 (7): 857–863. doi:10.1080/09540121.2018.1563285. PMID   30596264. S2CID   58569517.
  24. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Gupta, YK; Kumar, BD (2014). "Clinical trials and evolving regulatory science in India". Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 46 (6): 575–8. doi:10.4103/0253-7613.144887. PMC   4264069 . PMID   25538325.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  25. 1 2 Dang, A; Kanukula, R; Shah, C; Shetye, V (May 2017). "The Emerging Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Clinical Trials: An Indian Perspective". Value in Health Regional Issues. 12: 24–26. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2016.05.002 . PMID   28648312.
  26. 1 2 3 4 Sarangi, SC; Medhi, B (August 2011). "Clinical trials in India: issues with adherence to CONSORT statements". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 64 (8): 925–6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.03.002. PMID   21704256.
  27. ↑ Vaidyanathan, Gayathri (3 April 2019). "India's clinical-trial rules to speed up drug approvals". Nature . doi:10.1038/d41586-019-01054-4. PMID   32238890. S2CID   132179421.
  28. ↑ Tharyan, P; George, AT; Kirubakaran, R; Barnabas, JP (January 2013). "Reporting of methods was better in the Clinical Trials Registry-India than in Indian journal publications". Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 66 (1): 10–22. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.011. PMID   22459428.
  29. ↑ Kay, M. (4 January 2013). "Indian Supreme Court tells government to act on illegal clinical trials". BMJ. 346: f51. doi:10.1136/bmj.f51. PMID   23293093. S2CID   39333402.
  30. 1 2 Bagcchi, S. (13 November 2015). "Thousands die in clinical trials in India, but compensation is rarely paid". BMJ. 351 (nov13 20): h6149. doi:10.1136/bmj.h6149. PMID   26567006. S2CID   206908563.
  31. ↑ Mudur, G. (17 October 2013). "Health activists attack Indian compensation formula for deaths attributed to clinical trials". BMJ. 347 (oct17 3): f6295. doi:10.1136/bmj.f6295. PMID   24136639. S2CID   1293438.
  32. 1 2 Lorenzoni, G; Comoretto, RI; Ruffolo, M; Azzolina, D; Baldi, I (January 2019). "Pediatric Trials Run in India: An Analysis of Clinical Trials.gov 2006-2015". Indian Journal of Pediatrics. 86 (Suppl 1): 10–14. doi:10.1007/s12098-018-2825-7. hdl: 11392/2486597 . PMID   30648225. S2CID   58586400.
  33. ↑ Zammar, G; Meister, H; Shah, J; Phadtare, A; Cofiel, L; Pietrobon, R (16 December 2010). "So different, yet so similar: meta-analysis and policy modeling of willingness to participate in clinical trials among Brazilians and Indians". PLOS ONE. 5 (12): e14368. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...514368Z. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0014368 . PMC   3002940 . PMID   21179556.
  34. ↑ Viswanathan, S; Rao, M; Keating, A; Srivastava, A (August 2013). "Overcoming challenges to initiating cell therapy clinical trials in rapidly developing countries: India as a model". Stem Cells Translational Medicine. 2 (8): 607–13. doi:10.5966/sctm.2013-0019. PMC   3726140 . PMID   23836804.
  35. 1 2 3 Rake, B; Haeussler, C (2019). "Did relaxing clinical trial regulation enhance the stock of scientific knowledge in India? Not necessarily". PLOS ONE. 14 (1): e0210163. Bibcode:2019PLoSO..1410163R. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0210163 . PMC   6317798 . PMID   30605485.
  36. 1 2 3 Kamat, VR (March 2014). "Fast, cheap, and out of control? Speculations and ethical concerns in the conduct of outsourced clinical trials in India". Social Science & Medicine. 104: 48–55. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.12.008. PMID   24581061.
  37. ↑ Nicholas, J. (18 July 2012). "Outsourcing Clinical Trials". Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 104 (14): 1043–1045. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djs323 . PMID   22781429.
  38. ↑ Varawalla, N (June 2007). "India's growing clinical research sector: opportunity for global companies". IDrugs. 10 (6): 391–4. PMID   17642002.
  39. 1 2 Drabu, S; Gupta, A; Bhadauria, A (September 2010). "Emerging trends in contract research industry in India". Contemporary Clinical Trials. 31 (5): 419–22. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2010.06.008. PMID   20609394.
  40. 1 2 3 Joseph, J (May 2008). "Entering the contract research industry in India". Contemporary Clinical Trials. 29 (3): 311–3. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2007.10.006. PMID   18053773.
  41. 1 2 3 4 5 Sariola, S; Ravindran, D; Kumar, A; Jeffery, R (April 2015). "Big-pharmaceuticalisation: clinical trials and Contract Research Organisations in India". Social Science & Medicine. 131: 239–46. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.052 . hdl: 20.500.11820/c7aad342-65a6-4b2a-9b53-243e685e8271 . PMID   25476783.
  42. 1 2 3 The Lancet (April 2007). "Strengthening clinical research in India". The Lancet. 369 (9569): 1233. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60568-6. PMID   17434377.
  43. ↑ Maggon, Krishan (August 2004). "Investigator and site selection and performing GCP clinical studies in India". Controlled Clinical Trials. 25 (4): 366–377. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.06.006. PMID   15296811.
  44. 1 2 Jayaraman, K S (May 2004). "Outsourcing clinical trials to India rash and risky, critics warn". Nature Medicine. 10 (5): 440. doi: 10.1038/nm0504-440a . PMID   15122225. S2CID   45051722.
  45. 1 2 B. G., Jayasheel (May 2012). "Recent Changes in Regulations Related to Clinical Trials Approval in India" (PDF). PharmaTimes. 44 (5).
  46. ↑ Yee, Amy (February 2012). "Regulation failing to keep up with India's trials boom". The Lancet. 379 (9814): 397–398. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60172-X. PMID   22312640. S2CID   27282731.
  47. ↑ Maiti, R; M, R (July 2007). "Clinical trials in India". Pharmacological Research. 56 (1): 1–10. doi:10.1016/j.phrs.2007.02.004. PMID   17391981.
  48. 1 2 Chatterjee, Patralekha (August 2008). "Clinical trials in India: ethical concerns". Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 86 (8): 581–2. doi:10.2471/blt.08.010808. PMC   2649459 . PMID   18797610.
  49. ↑ Satyanarayana, K; Sharma, A; Parikh, P; Vijayan, VK; Sahu, DK; Nayak, BK; Gulati, RK; Parikh, MN; Singh, PP; Bavdekar, SB; Sreehari, U; Sahni, P (June 2008). "Statement on publishing clinical trials in Indian biomedical journals". Journal of Vector Borne Diseases. 45 (2): 81–2. PMID   18592836.
  50. ↑ Batmanabane, Gitanjali (July 2005). "ICMJE statement on compulsory clinical trial registration: should Indian journals follow suit?". Indian Journal of Medical Ethics . 2 (3): 74–5. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2005.038 . PMID   16276635.
  51. 1 2 3 4 5 Vaidyanathan, Gayathri (18 May 2012). "Failings exposed at India's drug regulator". Nature News . doi: 10.1038/nature.2012.10668 . S2CID   76235626.
  52. 1 2 3 Imran, M; Najmi, AK; Rashid, MF; Tabrez, S; Shah, MA (January 2013). "Clinical research regulation in India-history, development, initiatives, challenges and controversies: Still long way to go". Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences. 5 (1): 2–9. doi:10.4103/0975-7406.106553. PMC   3612334 . PMID   23559817.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  53. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Chatterjee, S (2013). "Regulatory changes in conduct of clinical trials: a need for review". Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 45 (4): 323–4. doi:10.4103/0253-7613.114990. PMC   3757596 . PMID   24014903.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  54. ↑ Juneja, A; Adhikari, T (2018). "Clinical trials waiver in India-some considerations". Indian Journal of Pharmacology. 50 (2): 97. doi:10.4103/ijp.IJP_540_17. PMC   6044129 . PMID   30100660.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  55. 1 2 Singh, N; Madkaikar, NJ; Gokhale, PM; Parmar, DV (2020). "New drugs and clinical trials rules 2019: Changes in responsibilities of the ethics committee". Perspectives in Clinical Research. 11 (1): 37–43. doi:10.4103/picr.PICR_208_19. PMC   7034142 . PMID   32154148.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  56. ↑ Jesani, A; Srinivasan, S (2019). "New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rules, 2019: The market trumps ethics and participant rights". Indian Journal of Medical Ethics . 4 (2): 89–91. doi: 10.20529/IJME.2019.020 . PMID   31271361.
  57. 1 2 3 Shah, JY; Phadtare, A; Rajgor, D; Vaghasia, M; Pradhan, S; Zelko, H; Pietrobon, R (20 May 2010). "What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies". PLOS ONE. 5 (5): e10730. Bibcode:2010PLoSO...510730S. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010730 . PMC   2873955 . PMID   20505754.
  58. ↑ Chatterjee, S; Kieselbach, B; Naik, S; Kumar, S; John, S; Balaji, M; Koschorke, M; Dabholkar, H; Varghese, M; Patel, V; Thornicroft, G; Thara, R (October 2015). "Customising informed consent procedures for people with schizophrenia in India". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 50 (10): 1527–36. doi:10.1007/s00127-015-1037-y. PMID   25735517. S2CID   71600.
  59. ↑ Sharma, Sunil (2009). "Phase 1 trials in oncology in India: The clear case for innovation". Journal of Cancer Research and Therapeutics. 5 (2): 69–70. doi: 10.4103/0973-1482.52787 . PMID   19542660.
  60. ↑ Hussain-Gambles, M; Atkin, K; Leese, B (July 2006). "South Asian participation in clinical trials: the views of lay people and health professionals". Health Policy. 77 (2): 149–65. doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2005.07.022. PMID   16216378.
  61. ↑ Hussain-Gambles, M; Leese, B; Atkin, K; Brown, J; Mason, S; Tovey, P (October 2004). "Involving South Asian patients in clinical trials". Health Technology Assessment. 8 (42): iii, 1–109. doi: 10.3310/hta8420 . PMID   15488164.
  62. ↑ Pai, H (October 2011). "Barriers to conducting clinical research in reproductive medicine: India". Fertility and Sterility. 96 (4): 809–10. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.08.045 . PMID   21961915.

Further consideration

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.