Drug trials should be held only in accredited centres: expert panel

Informed consent of patients must, says committee on new drugs and clinical trials approvals

 
By Kundan Pandey
Last Updated: Monday 17 August 2015

The expert committee set up by the government to formulate policy guidelines for approval of new drugs has proposed major changes in the existing guidelines for clinical drug trials in the country. The committee headed by Ranjit Roy Choudhury, advisor to department of health and family welfare, has recommended that clinical drug trials should be held only at centres which are accredited for the purpose. 

The expert committee was constituted in February to formulate policy and guidelines for approval of new drugs, clinical trials and banning drugs. The panel was set up soon after the Supreme Court slammed the Union ministry of health and family welfare for the uncontrolled clinical trials going on in the country, resulting in deaths of over 2,000 people between 2008 and 2011.

In its report, the committee has recommended that the principal investigator of a drug trial should be an accredited clinical investigator.  The ethics committee of the institute where the trials are held must also have accreditation, the committee has said. Only trials conducted at accredited centres and meeting these stipulations should be accepted by the Drugs Controller General of India (DCGI), the panel has recommended. 

The panel report has recommended the setting up of a central accreditation council to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and institute ethics committees. 

Main recommendations of expert committee

• Clinical drug trials should be held only at centres which are accredited for the purpose
• Principal investigator of a drug trial should be an accredited clinical investigator
• Ethics committee of the institute where the trials are held must also have accreditation
• There should be a central accreditation council to oversee the accreditation of institutes, clinical investigators and institute ethics committees
• Informed consent from each participant should be made a mandatory prerequisite for a clinical trial
• In cases of death or injury/disability related to trial, compensation should be paid to the participant or his or her legal heir
• If any adverse effect (AE) or serious adverse effect (SAE) occurs during a clinical trial, the sponsor investigator should be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient

The report has recommended selection of assessors for accreditation and of experts to review new drug applications and other purposes through a blind randomised procedure from a roster of experts. This 

roster will be prepared after a nationwide search of appropriate experts and approval by the technical review committee, which will replace  drug advisory committees, for approval of applications. The selection will have built-in safeguards for gender sensitivity and geographical representation. 

On the process of taking consent of subjects for trials, the committee has said that informed consent from each participant should be made a mandatory prerequisite for a clinical trial. In circumstances where informed consent has to be obtained from special groups of people who have diminished capacity to protect their interests or give consent for themselves, the consent given by the guardian should be witnessed by an independent person who also has to sign the informed consent document. 

The panel has also suggested audiovisual recording of the informed consent process, which should be undertaken and the documentation preserved while adhering to the principles of confidentiality. 

As per its recommendation, if any adverse effect (AE) or serious adverse effect (SAE) occurs during a clinical trial, the sponsor investigator should be responsible for providing medical treatment and care to the patient at his/their cost till the resolution of AE/SAE. This is to be given irrespective of whether the patient is in the control group, placebo group, standard drug treatment group or the test drug administered group. 

Who gets compensation? 
The recommendations also deal with the matter of compensation. “Compensation need not be paid for injury or death due to totally proven unrelated causes. In all other cases of death or injury/disability, compensation should be paid to the participant or his or her legal heirs.”

Compensation should be paid to the trial participant if any drug-related anomaly is discerned at a later stage and accepted to be drug-related by a competent authority whether in India or abroad, the report says. It suggests that any SAE arising in the group receiving the placebo in place of the standard treatment should also be compensable if the SAE is related to the use of placebo. 

The committee suggests that no compensation needs to be paid for therapeutic inefficiency, since the very purpose of a clinical trial is to determine the efficacy and safety of a given drug, vaccine or device.

It says that the government of India, state governments and institutions should create a fund in order to encourage academic and clinical research (non-pharmaceutical company related) in institutions. This fund will be available to the institution for paying compensation. 

Loopholes remain
Indore-based activist Anand Rai, who has has been vocal about unethical practices in drug trials said there are still a few problems with the recommendations. For example, the committee recommends no compensation for patients in the case of therapeutic inefficiency. “It is beyond our understanding that you administer drug during trial on a patient who has come to you for treatment, and later you tell them that it was drug trial and the drug was inefficient. In such case, the patient suffered but he/she will not get compensation.”

Another recommendation of providing compensation to drug trial subject by state and Central government is also illogical, he says, adding that the profit of drug trial will go to private firm so why, the government will pay the compensation; it means the public in the country will be paying for it. 


Report of the Prof. Ranjit Roy Chaudhury Expert Committee to formulate policy and guidelines for approval of new drugs, clinical trials and banning of drugs

Supreme Court order dated 03/01/2013 on clinical trials

What leads Indians to participate in clinical trials? A meta-analysis of qualitative studies

The quality of registration of clinical trials

Clinical trials and healthcare regulation in India

Ethical concerns in clinical trials in India: an investigation

Subscribe to Weekly Newsletter :

Comments are moderated and will be published only after the site moderator’s approval. Please use a genuine email ID and provide your name. Selected comments may also be used in the ‘Letters’ section of the Down To Earth print edition.