Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 27, Issue 5, pp 283–288 | Cite as

Recent Changes to Clinical Trial Regulation in India: Focus on Serious Adverse Events, Compensation and Registration of Ethics Committees

  • Manoj KarwaEmail author
  • Saurabh Arora
  • Shilpa Garg Agrawal
Current Opinion


The Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) in India has recently made an amendment to schedule Y of the Drug and Cosmetic Act after reports of irregularities were reported by media and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the conduct of clinical trials. The major concerns raised were related to the reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs), compensation to study participants in case of death or injury, and responsibilities of different stakeholders involved in the clinical trials. Another concern was to regularize the Ethics Committees and make them accountable for the clinical trials they approved. Considering all of the above points, three amendments in schedule Y have been introduced, namely Rule 122 DAB (GSR No. 53E), Rule 122 DAC (GSR No. 63E) [Rule 122 DAC, Permission to conduct clinical trials:, 2013] and Rule 122 DD (GSR No. 72E). These amendments are a testimony to the fact that a subject’s rights are paramount in India, and all the stakeholders now have added responsibilities and accountability. This article summarizes the critical points in these amendments and highlights the challenges they pose for all stakeholders in complying with them. We have also tried to address the grey areas of these amendments, which are still unanswered, and we are hopeful to get further clarification from the Licensing Authority soon.


Expert Committee Financial Compensation Independent Ethic Committee Investigational Product License Authority 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



Drs Karwa, Arora and Agrawal have no conflicts of interest that are relevant to the contents of this article and no financial compensation was received for the preparation of the manuscript.


  1. 1.
    Rule 122 DAC. Permission to conduct clinical trials. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  2. 2.
    Ramamurthy NV. Inept media trials of clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(2):47–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Writ petition filed by NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  4. 4.
    Supreme Court issues notices on unethical drug trials. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  5. 5.
    Pramesh CS, Badwe RA. Will the proposed compensation guidelines for research-related injury spell the death knell for clinical research in India? J Postgrad Med. 2012;58(2):156–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rule 122DAB. Serious event reporting timeline and compensation. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  7. 7.
    System of pre-screening for submission of reports of SAEs to CDSCO. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  8. 8.
    Elliott C. Justice for injured research subjects. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):6–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Divatia JV, Desai A, Pramesh CS, Mohandas KM, Gupta S, Badwe RA. Compensation guidelines for research-related injury in India. J Assoc Physicians India. 2012;60:53–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bavdekar SB, Thatte UM. Compensation for research-related injury. J Postgrad Med. 2009;55(2):87–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pandya M, Desai C. Compensation in clinical research: the debate continues. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(1):70–4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Puliyel J. Compensation for victims of clinical trials: a discussion on how current Indian rules and guidelines are hurting India. J Clin Diagn Res. 2012;6(8):1367–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Panel of experts for constituting independent expert committee to examine the SAE (death) occurring during the clinical trials. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  14. 14.
    Grady C. Payment of clinical research subjects. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(7):1681–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bentley JP, Thacker PG. The influence of risk and monetary payment on the research participation decision making process. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(3):293–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rule 122DD. Registration of Ethics Committees. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  17. 17.
    System for pre-screening of the applications for registration of Ethics Committee. Available from: Accessed 18 Jun 2013.
  18. 18.
    Tripathi R. Ethics committee member: reviewing the ‘Ethics’ in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(1):17–20.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steinbrook R. Compensation for injured research subjects. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(18):1871–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mukherjee S. Compensation conundrum. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(1):4–7.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Grant RW, Sugarman J. Ethics in human subjects research: do incentives matter? J Med Philos. 2004;29(6):717–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Formula to determine the quantum of compensation in the cases of clinical trial related serious adverse events (SAEs) of Deaths occurring during clinical trials. Available from: Accessed 07 Oct 2013.
  23. 23.
    Minutes of the 63rd DTAB meeting of Drugs Technical Advisory Board held on 16th May 2013 in the Committee Room, FDA Bhavan, Kotla Road, New Delhi. Available from: Accessed 07 Oct 2013.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manoj Karwa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Saurabh Arora
    • 1
  • Shilpa Garg Agrawal
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Research DepartmentAuriga Research Ltd.New DelhiIndia
  2. 2.SenseCRMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations