Recent history of clinical trials in India has been mired in avoidable controversies. Negative public perception and consequent reactions by government and judiciary have led to a virtual blockade of clinical trials in the country. This article dispassionately analyses the fiascos that happened in the past few years, describes how folklore disseminated by media, civil society and experts created a myth about ‘liberalisation’ of regulations and presents facts about regulatory amendments. The causes of recent non-compliances are discussed and real fault-lines are identified.
The article posits that territorial laws must remain harmonised with contemporary international standards for regulating global activities like clinical trials. Fixing what was not broken has already caused substantial harm and Indian regulators have done well by reversing the unnecessary tinkering recommended by some quasi-experts. Professional self-regulation along with implementation of existing regulations are proposed as the best solutions for gaining India’s place on the global clinical trials’ growth curve.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FDA Commissioner. (n.d.). The drug development process—Step 3: Clinical research. FDA. Retrieved 14December2016, from http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Drugs/ucm405622.htm
2.
FDA Commissioner (2012). How smart regulation supports public health and private enterprise. FDA.gov. Retrieved 30November2016, from http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/speeches/ucm290803.htm
3.
Government of India. (n.d.). Percentage poverty line 2011–12 statewise_r1. Data.gov.in. Retrieved 5March2018, from https://data.gov.in/catalog/below-poverty-line-india
4.
GreeneW. (2007). The emergence of India’s pharmaceutical industry and implications for the U.S. generic drug market. Retrieved 26November2016, from https://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/EC200705A.pdf
5.
ICH (2015). ICH–GCP R2. Retrieved 19November2016, from http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E6/E6_R2__Addendum_Step2.pdf
6.
ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline (1996). Guideline for good clinical practice E6(R1). ICH Harmon Tripart Guidel, 1996(4), 1–53. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1012246
7.
Indian Government (2004). Good clinical practices (GCP) India. CDSCO. Retrieved 30November2016, from http://www.cdsco.nic.in/html/GCP1.html
8.
KarthikeyanG. & PaisP. (2010). Clinical judgement & evidence-based medicine: Time for reconciliation. Indian Journal of Medical Research, 132(5), 623–626. doi: 10.4103/0971-5916.73418
9.
KumarN. K. (2013). Informed consent: Past and present. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 4(1), 21–25. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.106372
10.
LakhaniN. (2011). From tragedy to travesty: Drugs tested on survivors of Bhopal. The Independent, UK. Retrieved 19November2016, from http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/from-tragedy-to-travesty-drugs-tested-on-survivors-of-bhopal-6262412.html
11.
LevineC. (1988). Has AIDS changed the ethics of human subjects research?Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 16. Retrieved 5March2018, from http://lme.sagepub.com/content/16/3-4/167.extract
12.
Lloyd-RobertsS. (2012). Have India’s poor become human guinea pigs?BBC News. Retrieved 5March2018, from http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20136654
13.
LourencoC. (2008). Good regulatory practices presentation. Retrieved 20November2016, from http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/Training/GCG_-_Endorsed_Training_Events/APEC_LSIF_FDA_prelim_workshop_Bangkok__Thailand_Mar_08/Day_1/Good_regulatory_practices_-_Celia_Lourenco.pdf
14.
MudurG. (2001). Indian doctors defend unethical anticancer drug trial. BMJ, 323(7308), 299. Retrieved 19November2016, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11498476
15.
NagarajanR. (2011). Experiments with untruth. The Times of India. Retrieved 29November2016, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/deep-focus/Experiments-with-untruth/articleshow/9167894.cms
16.
NundyS. & GulhatiC. M. (2005). A new colonialism? Conducting clinical trials in India. The New England Journal of Medicine, 352(16), 1633–1636. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp048361
17.
Oxford Dictionary (2016). Oxford dictionaries word of the year 2016 is… | Oxford Dictionaries. Retrieved 5March2018, from https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/press/news/2016/11/15/WOTY-16
18.
Rajya Sabha Committee (2011). Alleged irregularities in the conduct of studies using HPV vaccine by PATH in India. Retrieved 20November2016, from http://www.icmr.nic.in/final/HPVPATHfinalreport.pdf
19.
Rajya Sabha Committee (2012). Functioning of CDSCO. Retrieved 5January2017, from http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/CommitteeonHealthandFamilyWelfare/59.pdf
20.
Rajya Sabha Committee (2013). Alleged irregularities in the conduct of studies using human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine by path. Retrieved 5March2018, from http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/CommitteeonHealthandFamilyWelfare/72.pdf
21.
SchwartzT. (2011). We don’t know what we don’t know. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved 4January2017, from https://hbr.org/2011/07/we-dont-know-what-we-dont-know
22.
SinhalK. (2008, August18). 49 babies die during clinical trials at AIIMS. The Times of India. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/49-babies-die-during-clinical-trials-at-AIIMS/articleshow/3374492.cms
23.
US FDA (1981). Clinical trials and human subject protection—Protection of human subjects; informed consent. Retrieved 14December2016, from http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RunningClinicalTrials/ucm113818.htm
24.
US FDA (2016). Clinical investigators—Disqualification proceedings. Retrieved 26November2016, from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/SDA/sdNavigation.cfm?sd=clinicalinvestigatorsdisqualificationproceedings
25.
World Medical Association (2013). Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Retrieved 19November2016, from http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/
