Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/GSR%2063(E)%20dated01%20.02.2013.pdf, 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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Rule 122 DAC. Permission to conduct clinical trials. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/GSR%2063(E)%20dated01%20.02.2013.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  2. Ramamurthy NV. Inept media trials of clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(2):47–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Writ petition filed by NGO Swasthya Adhikar Manch. Available from: http://www.unethicalclinicaltrial.org/Downloads/Detail%20Chronology%20of%20Events.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  4. Supreme Court issues notices on unethical drug trials. Available from: http://unethicalclinicaltrial.org/Downloads/Media%20News%206-2-2012%20PIL.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rule 122DAB. Serious event reporting timeline and compensation. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/GSR%2053(E)%20dated%2030.01.2013.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  7. System of pre-screening for submission of reports of SAEs to CDSCO. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/System%20of%20Pre-screening%20for%20submission%20of%20reports%20of%20SAEs%20to%20CDSCO.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  8. Elliott C. Justice for injured research subjects. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(1):6–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bavdekar SB, Thatte UM. Compensation for research-related injury. J Postgrad Med. 2009;55(2):87–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Pandya M, Desai C. Compensation in clinical research: the debate continues. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(1):70–4.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Panel of experts for constituting independent expert committee to examine the SAE (death) occurring during the clinical trials. Available from: http://cdsco.nic.in/panelof_exprt.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  14. Grady C. Payment of clinical research subjects. J Clin Invest. 2005;115(7):1681–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rule 122DD. Registration of Ethics Committees. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/html/G.S.R%2072(E)%20dated%2008.02.2013.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  17. System for pre-screening of the applications for registration of Ethics Committee. Available from: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/CHECKLIST%20FOR%20SUBMISSION%20192013.pdf. Accessed 18 Jun 2013.

  18. Tripathi R. Ethics committee member: reviewing the ‘Ethics’ in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res. 2013;4(1):17–20.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Steinbrook R. Compensation for injured research subjects. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(18):1871–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Mukherjee S. Compensation conundrum. Perspect Clin Res. 2012;3(1):4–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Grant RW, Sugarman J. Ethics in human subjects research: do incentives matter? J Med Philos. 2004;29(6):717–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/formula2013SAE.pdf. Accessed 07 Oct 2013.

  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: http://www.cdsco.nic.in/Minutes_63rd_dtab%20.pdf. Accessed 07 Oct 2013.

Download references

Acknowledgments

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinical Research Department, Auriga Research Ltd., 3/15 Kirti Nagar Industrial Area, New Delhi, 110015, India

    Manoj Karwa & Saurabh Arora

  2. SenseCR, E-09, 6th Floor, Everest Building, Tardeo, Mumbai, 400034, Maharashtra, India

    Shilpa Garg Agrawal

Authors
  1. Manoj Karwa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saurabh Arora
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shilpa Garg Agrawal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manoj Karwa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Karwa, M., Arora, S. & Agrawal, S.G. Recent Changes to Clinical Trial Regulation in India: Focus on Serious Adverse Events, Compensation and Registration of Ethics Committees. Pharm Med 27, 283–288 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-013-0032-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-013-0032-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation